DNA similarities ARE NOT proof of evolution

The molecular evidence is far more sophisticated and compelling than mere similarity between genomes of related species.Go here for evidence for how the human chromosome 2 is a fusion of two ancestral chromosomes, still separate in other great apes:
Chromosome fusionGo here for a detailed explanation of how the comparisons between the mouse and the human genomes point inexorably to common descent:
Mouse genome homeFor example: 'The rate of substitutions in ancestral repeat sequences in non-coding DNA is the same as the rate of substitution at four fold degenerate sites in functional regions - very strong evidence for mutation and selection over a long time.' There is much more evidence posted at the above URL and other pages at the same site that it links to.

Thanks for the welcome. The molecular evidence for common dscent is overwhelming and it goes far beyond mere similarity. I am more than happy to expand on or explain in more detail any of the pieces of evidence on the links, some of which are, admittedly, quite technical. With the publication of other mammalian genomes (including chimpanzee quite soon) to supplement man and mouse, the evidence for common descent in the mammalian lineage is set to become even more compelling.The website I linked to has other articles and arguments for evolution (and not just in molecular biology). It includes a thorough rebuttal of recent creationist claims that Mitochondrial Eve is only 6500 years old, examples of several recently discovered transitional fossils and rebuttals of challenges to U-Pb dating and the constancy of the speed of light. Alec's Evolution Pages with scientific evidence for evolution and refutations of creationist arguments

There is new evidence on-line here about the process that triggered the divergence, from the common ancestor, of the two lineages that led to modern humans and modern chimpanzees. It uses the similarity (homology is the technical term) between the genomes of humans and chimps but is far more sophisticated than that. The conclusions are based on comparing the rate of divergent evolution in chromosomes that have major inversions compared with those that do not. Go here:Human/chimpanzee divergence