Already explained: DNA comparison, specifically base by base comparison.Similarity in what way?
Nice diversion.The human body is roughly 70% water. And many meals are roughly 70% water. So with a limited understanding of structure, superficial minds may conclude that there's a great similarity between humans and what they eat.
No design has been demonstrated, hence your criticism based on your own baseless assertions fail.<quoted text> Your "unscientific alternative" is based on the fantasy of magic molecular machines. Clearly, complex machines are magical if randomly changing their design blueprints yet equally robust machines.
Actually you did. Chimps share 98% of our DNA and are fine. Gorillas share 97, Orangs around 96. They're fine too. Genetic entropy that the genome is changing, deteriorating from the "perfect" ideal of what humanity used to be when they were Adam and Eve. Therefore by the time our DNA has changed by 1% or more? Less? It will no longer be viable as we will have eventually reached genetic critical mass and will no longer be viable, leading to an inevitable unrecoverable decline of the human population. But you are unable to provide a date based on observable mutation rates, nor can you explain why DNA can be 98, 97, and 96% different but not 99%. The reason being it's totally arbitrary and unsupported on your part.I have never made that claim. However, I do expect that randomly changing 1% DNA of any living thing will obviously result in something not viable (excluding sets of measure zero).
Whereas we on the other hand can note that the human population is currently increasing, and those who suffer mutations that are a severe detriment to procreation are the exception, not the rule.