Through comparison with the human genome, we have generated a largely complete catalogue of the genetic differences that have accumulated since the human and chimpanzee species diverged from our common ancestor, constituting approximately thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements. We use this catalogue to explore the magnitude and regional variation of mutational forces shaping these two genomes, and the strength of positive and negative selection acting on their genes. In particular, we find that the patterns of evolution in human and chimpanzee protein-coding genes are highly correlated and dominated by the fixation of neutral and slightly deleterious alleles. We also use the chimpanzee genome as an outgroup to investigate human population genetics and identify signatures of selective sweeps in recent human evolution.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=16136131
This same thinking has been seen in compute models of mechanical structures. People have abandoned older classical methods for the easier computer models. The problem is “garbage in garbage out”. Just because you have other methods of analysis is no reason to abandon tried and true methods. Believe the results if they can be confirmed by multiple methods.
Just curious. Did someone beat you with a bible?
Not only is there no common ancestor for humans and chimpanzees, but the common belief amongst "evolutionary biologists(TM)" regarding a common ancestor for us and neanderthals only works for people who've never taken a basic logic course. The neanderthal has been completely ruled out as a plausible ancestor for modern man by DNA analysis since the genetic gap is simply too wide and all other hominids were much further removed from us than the neanderthal; i.e. if we could not be descended from the neanderthal, there is nothing else on the planet which we could be descended from.
Moreover this lack of true intermediate species is the general and unbroken rule on this planet. Darwin's vision of gradualistic evolution required that the vast bulk of all fossils be intermediates and all anybody has ever produced has been a handful of arguable cases.
Moreover, this lack of intermediate fossils was the main motive for Gould, Eldridge, Myer et. all. in devising the new defacto standard variant of evolutionism called "punctuated equilibria" or "punk-eek". If there was any rational way anybody could claim that there really are lots of intermediate fossils if you just look carefully enough, then Gould and Eldridge would not have bothered.
Real science theories do not need to be reinvented every twenty or thirty years. Punk-eek is entirely idiotic for a number of reasons not involving fossil counts and amounts to a claim of a massive refutation of the basic laws of mathematics and probability. In particular the claim that every species on Earth has arisen from genetic advantages acquired by "peripheral isolates" is like requiring Custer to win at Little Bighorn every day for tens of billions of years.
Basically, nobody with anything resembling brains or talent is defending evolution at this juncture; it is being defended by dead wood and second and third raters.