[Aric2000]

G3K, you are CLUELESS as to what paleontology is.

The example you site is ridiculous in the extreme, and just plain silly.

A DNA test would be used in such an instance, and from there we could tell EXACTLy who was related to whom, and from where, etc.

Paleontologists have been able to make their connections via the bones, fossils etc, piecing them together using modern skeletons as a baseline, and what do you know, when you put them all in a row, they seem to have one coming from another coming from another, wow, what a concept, evolution at work, but since you refuse to understand or see evolution at work, you become completely clueless about the whole thing.

When you refuse to accept evolution as a possible explanation, all kinds of things suddenly become impossible.

The problem is your basic assumption, not the science itself.

[gore3000]

A DNA test would be used in such an instance

No DNA test is possible from mere bones and almost all fossils are just that or even less - some are just impressions on rocks.

Paleontologists have been able to make their connections via the bones, fossils etc, piecing them together using modern skeletons as a baseline

That is what they claim. I am saying that it is a false claim. If they cannot correctly tell the descent of a son from a father when good cadavers are available, they clearly cannot show descent from millions of years ago when the bones are in very poor condition.