Evolutionists claim that common genetic code is a good proof of the theory of evolution.

Let's examine more closely these claims of evolutionists.
In order to illustrate the idea we will provide several analogies.
Suppose we take two different books into our hands, and while reading both books, we find out that both books contain a lot of identical text – what conclusion we can draw from this fact? The conclusion is very simple – most likely both books were written by the same author.
Another example. Suppose we take two computer programs, and while examining the software code, we find out that both programs have a lot of identical program code – what conclusion we can draw from this fact? The conclusion is very simple – most likely both programs were written by the same programmer, in computer science this phenomenon is called as “reusable program code”.
Etc.
The same identical principle applies to the “common genetic code” – if two organisms share a lot of common genetic code – what conclusion we can draw from this fact? The argument of “common genetic code” can be used as evidence of the common designer/creator who created both these organisms using the fragments of the same genetic code in order to save his time and not to invent the bicycle again.
Strictly speaking, “common genetic code” does not prove the evolution, because the argument of “common genetic code” can be used as: 1) the proof of evolution, and as 2) the proof of the common designer/creator.

Evolutionists claim that homologous structures is a good proof of the theory of evolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homology_(biology)

In the context of biology, homology is the existence of shared ancestry between a pair of structures, or genes, in different taxa. A common example of homologous structures in evolutionary biology are the wings of bats and the arms of primates. Evolutionary theory explains the existence of homologous structures adapted to different purposes as the result of descent with modification from a common ancestor. The principle of homology: The biological derivation relationship (shown by colors) of the various bones in the forelimbs of four vertebrates is known as homology and was one of Charles Darwin’s arguments in favor of evolution. The wings of pterosaurs (1), bats (2) and birds (3) are analogous as wings, but homologous as forelimbs.

Wikipedia

Let's examine more closely these claims of evolutionists.
In order to illustrate the idea we will provide the analogy.
Suppose we take two different devices into our hands, and by disassembling both devices, we find out that both devices contain a lot of identical/similar composing parts – what conclusion we can draw from this fact? The conclusion is very simple – most likely both devices were designed/made by the same author.
The same identical principle applies to the “homologous structures” – if two organisms have homologous structures – what conclusion we can draw from this fact? The argument of “homologous structures” can be used as evidence of the common designer/creator who created both these organisms using homologous structures in order to save his time and not to invent the bicycle again.
Strictly speaking, “homologous structures” does not prove the evolution, because the argument of “homologous structures” can be used as: 1) the proof of evolution, and as 2) the proof of the common designer/creator.

Let's examine more closely these claims of evolutionists.
We will remind from biology that no known living organism can live long enough separately from other organisms. The population can exist long enough only when interacting with other populations within the ecosystem (in other words – “only the ecosystem is alive”). Some organisms eat other organisms (food chain) and it is connected in a vicious circle. Plants transform minerals into the organic substances, animals eat plants and after the death of the animal, its body is rotten by the bacteria back into inorganic substances and the food chain cycle starts all over again.

Evolutionists claim that because all living organisms are composed of the same amino acids, this supposedly proves their common descent. However, from another point of view – if different types of living organisms would be composed of different amino acids, then the only form of feeding for such organisms would be cannibalism. Cannibalism is the act of one individual of a species consuming all or part of another individual of the same species as food. The cannibalism would be necessary because only the representatives of their own species would contain the substances that are necessary for the growth of its body. However, because all organisms are composed of the same amino acids, they are able to eat each other thus forming a cycle of matter within ecosystems. Therefore, the living organisms must consist of the same amino acids in order for the ecosystem to function successfully.
In case if the Designer has designed something, then it is very certain that he has designed not a single rabbit, but instead he has designed the entire ecosystem.
Strictly speaking, the fact that “proteins of all living organisms are composed of the same 22 amino acids” does not prove the evolution, because this argument can be used as: 1) the proof of evolution, and as 2) the proof of the common designer/creator.

Evolutionists claim that “poor design” of animal’s organs is a good proof of the theory of evolution.

As for example, Richard Dawkins claims that the bad design of human eye and laryngeal nerve of the giraffe supposedly proves evolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

Evidence of common descent <...> Recurrent laryngeal nerve in giraffes The recurrent laryngeal nerve is a fourth branch of the vagus nerve, which is a cranial nerve. In mammals, its path is unusually long. As a part of the vagus nerve, it comes from the brain, passes through the neck down to heart, rounds the dorsal aorta and returns up to the larynx, again through the neck. (Fig. 2f) This path is suboptimal even for humans, but for giraffes it becomes even more suboptimal. Due to the lengths of their necks, the recurrent laryngeal nerve may be up to 4 m (13 ft) long, despite its optimal route being a distance of just several inches. The indirect route of this nerve is the result of evolution of mammals from fish, which had no neck and had a relatively short nerve that innervated one gill slit and passed near the gill arch. Since then, the gill it innervated has become the larynx and the gill arch has become the dorsal aorta in mammals. Figure 2f: The path of the recurrent laryngeal nerve in giraffes. The laryngeal nerve is compensated for by subsequent tinkering from natural selection.

Wikipedia

Let's examine more closely these claims of evolutionists.
We will remind from biology that no known living organism can live long enough separately from other organisms. The population can exist long enough only when interacting with other populations within the ecosystem (in other words – “only the ecosystem is alive”). Some organisms eat other organisms (food chain) and it is connected in a vicious circle. Plants transform minerals into the organic substances, animals eat plants and after the death of the animal, its body is rotten by the bacteria back into inorganic substances and the food chain cycle starts all over again.

Evolutionists claim that because all living organisms are composed of the same amino acids, this supposedly proves their common descent. However, from another point of view – if different types of living organisms would be composed of different amino acids, then the only form of feeding for such organisms would be cannibalism. Cannibalism is the act of one individual of a species consuming all or part of another individual of the same species as food. The cannibalism would be necessary because only the representatives of their own species would contain the substances that are necessary for the growth of its body. However, because all organisms are composed of the same amino acids, they are able to eat each other thus forming a cycle of matter within ecosystems. Therefore, the living organisms must consist of the same amino acids in order for the ecosystem to function successfully.

Now let’s go back to the “bad design” of animals. Evolutionists here will present you with a great bunch of examples of “poor design” of animals. Many of the examples, given by evolutionists, will be even wrong, but we will not go into the details, because the details are not important. We will just have a look from the perspective of a higher hierarchical level – from the perspective of the ecosystem.

Let's take a rabbit as an example. Evolutionists will find a thousand reasons what exactly is “wrong” within the rabbit and then evolutionists will declare that the rabbit has “bad/poor design” – anyway finally the wolf has caught the rabbit and ate it, and this proves that the rabbit has “bad/poor design” – if the rabbit would have “good design” then such rabbit would smash the wolf into the dust. However let’s analyze from the perspective of the ecosystem. If the rabbit would be super-rabbit and would smash all wolfs into the dust, then what will eat the wolf? The wolf would just die because of hunger. No animal can exist separately from the ecosystem; it is the part of the ecosystem. The “bad/poor design” of the animal is a necessary condition for the functioning of the ecosystem as a whole. Unfortunately, the rabbit must have “bad/poor design” in order the wolf could catch it and eat it. If some animal has poor hearing then this is because it is necessary to ensure that this animal could not hear when someone is sneaking up on him. If some animal has a poor vision then this is because it is necessary to ensure that this animal could not see when someone is sneaking up on him. All claims about the “bad/poor design” of the animal reveal the total lack of understanding of how the ecosystems function. Everything makes sense only from the perspective of the ecosystem. In case if the Designer has designed something, then it is very certain that he has designed not a single rabbit, but instead he has designed the entire ecosystem.

This topic is very well known to those who program and design computer games. During the creation of the computer game, one of the biggest challenges is to set up the “game balance”. In the world of the computer game the virtual agents are acting (dwarves, dragons, wizards, heroes, farmers, etc.). During the creation of the computer game a very serious technical problem is the question how to choose and how to balance the parameters of each agent in such a way that during the game one kind of agents would not overshadow or destroy all other agents (e.g. that the dragons would not destroy all the other agents). The technical question is how to balance the parameters of each agent in such a way that the virtual world of computer game would remain more or less stable. During the creation of the computer game, the game is tested with different scenarios in order to check whether the game is balanced or not. If the game is unbalanced then the programmer must make some agents visually impaired or hearing impaired or the “perfect design” of these agents must be damaged in some other way. It is enough to leave at least one “perfect” or “near-perfect” agent and this will totally destroy the game balance and will destroy the game.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo_drawing

Embryo drawing is the illustration of embryos in their developmental sequence. In plants and animals, an embryo develops from a zygote, the single cell that results when an egg and sperm fuse during fertilization. In animals, the zygote divides repeatedly to form a ball of cells, which then forms a set of tissue layers that migrate and fold to form an early embryo. Images of embryos provide a means of comparing embryos of different ages, and species. To this day, embryo drawings are made in undergraduate developmental biology lessons. Comparing different embryonic stages of different animals is a tool that can be used to infer relationships between species, and thus biological evolution. This has been a source of quite some controversy, both now and in the past. Ernst Haeckel pioneered in this field. By comparing different embryonic stages of different vertebrate species, he formulated the recapitulation theory. This theory states that an animal's embryonic development follows exactly the same sequence as the sequence of its evolutionary ancestors. Haeckel's work and the ensuing controversy linked the fields of developmental biology and comparative anatomy into comparative embryology. From a more modern perspective, Haeckel's drawings were the beginnings of the field of evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo). The study of comparative embryology aims to prove or disprove that vertebrate embryos of different classes (e.g. mammals vs. fish) follow a similar developmental path due to their common ancestry. Such developing vertebrates have similar genes, which determine the basic body plan. However, further development allows for the distinguishing of distinct characteristics as adults. <...> Controversy The exactness of Ernst Haeckel's drawings of embryos has caused much controversy among Intelligent Design proponents recently and Haeckel's intellectual opponents in the past. Although the early embryos of different species exhibit similarities, Haeckel apparently exaggerated these similarities in support of his Recapitulation theory, sometimes known as the Biogenetic Law or "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny". Furthermore, Haeckel even proposed theoretical life-forms to accommodate certain stages in embryogenesis. A recent review concluded that the "biogenetic law is supported by several recent studies - if applied to single characters only". Critics in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Karl von Baer and Wilhelm His, did not believe that living embryos reproduce the evolutionary process and produced embryo drawings of their own which emphasized the differences in early embryological development. Late 20th and early 21st century critics Jonathan Wells and Stephen Jay Gould have objected to the continued use of Haeckel’s embryo drawings in textbooks. On the other hand, Michael K. Richardson, Professor of Evolutionary Developmental Zoology, Leiden University, while recognizing that some criticisms of the drawings are legitimate (indeed, it was he and his co-workers who began the modern criticisms in 1998), has supported the drawings as teaching aids, and has said that "on a fundamental level, Haeckel was correct". <...> Opposition to Haeckel Haeckel encountered numerous oppositions to his artistic depictions of embryonic development during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Haeckel’s opponents believe that he de-emphasizes the differences between early embryonic stages in order to make the similarities between embryos of different species more pronounced. <...> Contemporary criticism of Haeckel: Michael Richardson and Stephen Jay Gould Michael Richardson and his colleagues in a July 1997 issue of Anatomy and Embryology, demonstrated that Haeckel fudged his drawings in order to exaggerate the similarity of the phylotypic stage. In a March 2000 issue of Natural History, Stephen Jay Gould argued that Haeckel “exaggerated the similarities by idealizations and omissions.” As well, Gould argued that Haeckel’s drawings are simply inaccurate and falsified. On the other hand, one of those who criticized Haeckel's drawings, Michael Richardson, has argued that "Haeckel's much-criticized drawings are important as phylogenetic hypotheses, teaching aids, and evidence for evolution". But even Richardson admitted in Science Magazine in 1997 that his team's investigation of Haeckel's drawings were showing them to be "one of the most famous fakes in biology." Some version of Haeckel’s drawings can be found in many modern biology textbooks in discussions of the history of embryology, with clarification that these are no longer considered valid . <...> The survival and reproduction of Haeckel's embryo drawings Haeckel's embryo drawings, as comparative plates, were at first only copied into biology textbooks, rather than texts on the study of embryology. Even though Haeckel's program in comparative embryology virtually collapsed after the First World War, his embryo drawings have often been reproduced and redrawn with increased precision and accuracy in works that have kept the study of comparative embryology alive. Nevertheless, neither His-inspired human embryology nor developmental biology are concerned with the comparison of vertebrate embryos. Although Stephen Jay Gould's 1977 book Ontogeny and Phylogeny helps to reassess Haeckelian embryology, it does not address the controversy over Haeckel's embryo drawings. Nevertheless, new interest in evolution in and around 1977 inspired developmental biologists to look more closely at Haeckel's illustrations. Romanes' 1892 copy of Ernst Haeckel's allegedly fraudulent embryo drawings (this version of the figure is often attributed incorrectly to Haeckel).

Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recapitulation_theory

Haeckel produced several embryo drawings that often overemphasized similarities between embryos of related species. The misinformation was propagated through many biology textbooks, and popular knowledge, even today. Modern biology rejects the literal and universal form of Haeckel's theory, such as its possible application to behavioural ontogeny, i.e. the psychomotor development of young animals and human children. George Romanes's 1892 copy of Ernst Haeckel's controversial embryo drawings (this version of the figure is often attributed incorrectly to Haeckel).

Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Haeckel

Ernst Heinrich Philipp August Haeckel (German: [ˈhɛkəl]; 16 February 1834 – 9 August 1919) was a German biologist, naturalist, philosopher, physician, professor, and artist who discovered, described and named thousands of new species, mapped a genealogical tree relating all life forms, and coined many terms in biology, including anthropogeny, ecology, phylum, phylogeny, stem cell, and Protista. Haeckel promoted and popularised Charles Darwin's work in Germany and developed the influential but no longer widely held recapitulation theory ("ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny") claiming that an individual organism's biological development, or ontogeny, parallels and summarises its species' evolutionary development, or phylogeny. <...> Haeckel supported the theory with embryo drawings that have since been shown to be oversimplified and in part inaccurate, and the theory is now considered an oversimplification of quite complicated relationships. Haeckel introduced the concept of heterochrony, the change in timing of embryonic development over the course of evolution. <...> Controversy <...> While it has been widely claimed that Haeckel was charged with fraud by five professors and convicted by a university court at Jena, there does not appear to be an independently verifiable source for this claim. Recent analyses (Richardson 1998, Richardson and Keuck 2002) have found that some of the criticisms of Haeckel's embryo drawings were legitimate, but others were unfounded. There were multiple versions of the embryo drawings, and Haeckel rejected the claims of fraud. It was later said that "there is evidence of sleight of hand" on both sides of the feud between Haeckel and Wilhelm His. Robert J. Richards, in a paper published in 2008, defends the case for Haeckel, shedding doubt against the fraud accusations based on the material used for comparison with what Haeckel could access at the time. The controversy involves several different issues (see more details at: recapitulation theory). 1874 illustration from Anthropogenie showing "very early", "somewhat later" and "still later" stages of embryos of fish (F), salamander (A), turtle (T), chick (H), pig (S), cow (R), rabbit (K), and human (M)

Wikipedia

Michael K. Richardson’s embryo photos are provided below.

https://pigeonchess.com/...embryo-picture-on-his-readers/

Richardson's embryo photos (Richardson et al., 1998)

Creationist foists “fraudulent” embryo picture on his readers By Troy Britain. July 26, 2012. Playing chess with pigeons.

It is important to note that the artificial cell was made by disassembling the existing living cells and by taking ready-made components from the existing living cells.
A brief digest of the article: the making of artificial cell took 15 years, a large group of scientists had been working on the project in order to produce the artificial cell, and they needed to use such and such technologies in such and such steps – to transport the gene, to remove/add specific enzymes and so on.
The summary: we have the fact – the artificial cell was made, a large group of scientists worked on this project for 15 years, in order to create the artificial cell the scientists used the most advanced tools of genetic engineering and molecular biology techniques.
Let’s raise a simple question: what can we deduce from the fact that scientists had made the artificial cell?

We have two options:
1) the artificial cell chaotically self-assembled itself;
2) the intelligence and meticulous, attentive highly skilled work was needed for the creation of the artificial cell.

Which of the two options best matches the content of the article?
Obviously the second option.
In other words, the article is a good proof that intelligence was needed for the creation of the artificial cell.
Unfortunately, the creation of artificial cell is not the proof of the theory of evolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

Evidence of common descent of living organisms has been discovered by scientists researching in a variety of disciplines over many decades, demonstrating the common descent of all life on Earth developing from a last universal ancestor. This evidence constructs the theoretical framework on which evolutionary theory rests, demonstrates that evolution does occur, and is able to show the natural processes that led to the emergence of Earth's biodiversity. <...> Vestigial structures A strong and direct evidence for common descent comes from vestigial structures. Rudimentary body parts, those that are smaller and simpler in structure than corresponding parts in the ancestral species, are called vestigial organs. They are usually degenerated or underdeveloped. The existence of vestigial organs can be explained in terms of changes in the environment or modes of life of the species. Those organs are typically functional in the ancestral species but are now either nonfunctional or re-purposed. Examples are the pelvic girdles of whales, haltere (hind wings) of flies and mosquitos, nictitating membranes (and its homolog, the plica semilunaris in humans), wings of flightless birds such as ostriches, and the leaves of some xerophytes (e.g. cactus) and parasitic plants (e.g. dodder). However, vestigial structures may have their original function replaced with another. For example, the halteres in dipterists help balance the insect while in flight and the wings of ostriches are used in mating rituals. Specific examples from comparative anatomy Hind structures in whales Whales possess internally reduced hind parts such as the pelvis and hind legs (Fig. 2b). Occasionally, the genes that code for longer extremities cause a modern whale to develop legs. On October 28, 2006, a four-finned bottlenose dolphin was caught and studied due to its extra set of hind limbs. These legged Cetacea display an example of an atavism predicted from their common ancestry. Figure 2b: Skeleton of a Baleen whale with the hind limb and pelvic bone structure circled in red. This bone structure stays internal during the entire life of the species. <...> Atavisms Once thought of as a refutation to evolutionary theory, atavisms are "now seen as potent evidence of how much genetic potential is retained...after a particular structure has disappeared from a species". "Atavisms are the reappearance of a lost character typical of remote ancestors and not seen in the parents or recent ancestors..." and are an "[indication] of the developmental plasticity that exits within embryos..." Atavisms occur because genes for previously existing phenotypical features are often preserved in DNA, even though the genes are not expressed in some or most of the organisms possessing them. Numerous examples have documented the occurrence of atavisms alongside experimental research triggering their formation. Due to the complexity and interrelatedness of the factors involved in the development of atavisms, both biologists and medical professionals find it "difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish [them] from malformations." Some examples of atavisms found in the scientific literature include: Hind limbs in whales.<...> Figure 2a: In July 1919, a humpback whale was caught by a ship operating out of Vancouver that had legs 4 ft 2 in (1.27 m) long. This image shows the hindlegs of another humpback whale reported in 1921 by the American Museum.

Wikipedia

Let's examine more closely these claims of evolutionists.

Evolutionists will provide you a great bunch of examples of “useless” vestigial organs of animals.
In many cases evolutionists provide incorrect examples of “useless” vestigial organs, as for example the hind legs in whales.
Evolutionists claim that whales are mammals that had lived on land and then have returned back to the ocean. When the whales walked the earth, whales had legs with which whales walked on the earth. When whales went back into the ocean, their legs vanished, and now whales have only small vestigial remnants of the legs, which are absolutely useless.
However, when evolutionists tell us this story about whales, either they do not know the anatomy of whales, or they are obviously lying.
The reality is that certain muscles are attached to these “rudimentary” leg bones of the whale. If these muscles or legs will be cut off, then without them the whale will be unable to give birth. Yes, the whale does not use those legs all the time, however when it comes time to give birth, the female whale can not give birth without them, and this means that a whale could not leave offspring, and without the descendants the evolutionary chain/branch will be cut off. And whale males use these muscles/legs to control their penis during the copulation.
As you can see from the example with hind legs of whales, many examples of “useless” vestigial organs provided by evolutionists are wrong.
But the point is not even that, the point is another thing.

For explanation we need more precise definition of terms:
1) Devolution is the process which reduces the number of structural elements of the organism.
Devolution is the phenomenon which we can observe experimentally.

2) Evolution is the process which increases the number of structural elements of the organism.
Evolution is the phenomenon which no one has ever registered experimentally, however evolutionists firmly believe that such phenomenon supposedly exist.

The structural element is one of the components in the complex structure.

The structural elements of the body are the organs (heart, lungs, kidneys, etc.).
The structural elements of the cell are organelles.

Now let’s go back to the evolutionists’ claim that “vestigial organs is a good proof of the theory of evolution”.
Here we will need logical thinking. Suppose we have a leg which has atrophied and vanished in the course of evolution, and now there are left only small remnants of the legs which do not perform any function. In order for these “vestigial organs” (the remnants of the legs) to appear, first of all, it is necessary to start with big legs, and only then the legs will decrease and decrease, until there will be left only tiny remnants of the legs.
But then the question remains unanswered: “where do the big legs came from?”.
After all, you need to start with a normal organ, in order to get a “vestigial organ”.

Vestigial organs do not prove the theory of evolution, because evolutionists claim that simple life forms evolve into new more complex life forms, and the difference between complex and simple life forms is the presence of new organs.
However, vestigial organs is the proof of devolution (i.e. proof of the degradation and decline).
Vestigial organs do not prove the theory of evolution (i.e. vestigial organs do not prove the process of increasing complexity of organisms).

Let's examine more closely these claims of evolutionists.

Evolutionists claim that simple organisms (i.e. organisms that have small number of structural elements) evolve into more complex organisms (i.e., organisms which have larger number of the structural elements). Evolutionists draw evolutionary trees which show how simple organisms have evolved into more complex organisms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_tree

A phylogenetic tree or evolutionary tree is a branching diagram or "tree" showing the inferred evolutionary relationships among various biological species or other entities—their phylogeny—based upon similarities and differences in their physical or genetic characteristics. The taxa joined together in the tree are implied to have descended from a common ancestor. Phylogenetic trees are central to the field of phylogenetics. In a rooted phylogenetic tree, each node with descendants represents the inferred most recent common ancestor of the descendants, and the edge lengths in some trees may be interpreted as time estimates. Each node is called a taxonomic unit. Internal nodes are generally called hypothetical taxonomic units, as they cannot be directly observed. Trees are useful in fields of biology such as bioinformatics, systematics, and phylogenetic comparative methods. Unrooted trees illustrate only the relatedness of the leaf nodes and do not require the ancestral root to be known or inferred. A rooted phylogenetic tree, illustrating how Eukaryota and Archaea are more closely related to each other than to Bacteria (based on Cavalier-Smith's theory of bacterial evolution). Neomura is a clade composed of two life domains, Archaea and Eukaryota. LUCA, a variant of LUA, stands for last universal common ancestor. A speculatively rooted tree for rRNA genes, showing the three life domains Bacteria, Archaea, and Eucaryota, and linking the three branches of living organisms to the LUCA (the black trunk at the bottom of the tree); cf. next graphic. Diagrammatic representation of the divergence of modern taxonomic groups from their common ancestor A spindle diagram, showing the evolution of the vertebrates at class level, width of spindles indicating number of families. Spindle diagrams are often used in evolutionary taxonomy.

Wikipedia

Evolutionists claim that man evolved from rock (“rock” may be called with different names however the essence remains the same).
The difference of the man from the rock is that man has more organs than a rock, as for example, man has heart, liver, lungs, etc.
This means that all these organs must have arisen sometime in the past.
Evolutionists claim that all the organs have arisen in the process of evolution.
Evolutionists claim that evolution is exactly the mechanism which creates new organs.

Now let’s go back to the evolutionists’ claim that “natural selection causes evolution”.

In order to be able to select something by using natural selection, at first these best/worst organisms/animals must already exist, and only then it is possible to select something from them.
Natural selection does not create new more complex organisms/animals, natural selection simply chooses from the already existing ones.
Natural selection does not explain where and how these new organisms/animals have arisen.
Natural selection does not explain how new species arise. Natural selection simply selects the more successful species from the existing ones; however natural selection does not explain the origin of new more complex species.
Therefore, natural selection is not the proof of the theory of evolution.