One side said genetic simularities don't prove evolution, and the other agreed that however compelling its not the outright proof of evolution. Where is the arguement? Evolution is supported by so much evidence that saying that any one thing doesn't prove it is a failed enterprise.
Furthermore, can evolution really be proven? I think we can prove it to the limits of inductive thought, enough to show that it would be silly to believe otherwise.
I guess I'm just destined to travel the middle of the road on this one, being an evolutionary creationist and all.
------------------
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein
™ Version 4.2