What you are proving is you have different devices with DIP switches that can be thrown to meet varying conditions based upon a common building block. You have not proven such were not the result of a Creator or that such could be solely from abiogenesis, which even then can be the result of intelligent design, part of the process of creation. Denying the possibility of an ultimate intelligent creator is a large leap of faith given that we utilize much cruder methodology to effect the same in our creations. Such would be true also if we could even CAUSE life to begin from chemicals.<quoted text>
Hmmm, that's a Pew Research Center poll from: http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/sectio...
They included people trained in medicine who are part of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)- I'd like to see which scientists disagreed with evolution. I would bet it would be the medical ones or those utterly not involved in biological research. Medicine hails from a dualist tradition - but us evolutionary theorists are challenging that, showing that they're wrong, and changing the field. It's a work in progress, but in the future, medicine will be unified by evolution, as all biological sciences are.
There is no competing theory to evolution to explain evolution the observation. Evolution literally is "allelic frequency change over time." It is directly observable, objectively measurable. The theory exists to explain it.
Evolution has never been disproved, not once.
To answer your question. We have the fossil record. How much of it do you understand? Fossils get older the deeper you dig; younger species are closer to the surface (after the geological law of original horizontality; things are buried from oldest to newest).
So we know how old specimens are. We can work out their morphology - based on morphology, we can draw up relationships based on similarity. For example, your shoulders are a ball and socket joint that can rotate 360 degrees. You can turn around on the X-axis if you're hanging by one arm. The same is true of all the great apes, and monkeys, but not true of other mammals, like canines and felines. So we know that humans fit into the primate clade (group), based on this one morphological observation (there are many that make us primates; that are only shared by primates that we have).
Second, on some specimens we can sequence their genetic material. The genes and, more importantly, the mutations and genetic insertions (from viruses and bacteria) can be compared to any species we can sequence - and we can draw up lines of relationships here, too (b/c non-coding sequences build up mutations. If these are shared between species, they are related.).
If species did not have evolutionary relationships, if species were separately created, we would not observe what we observe in nature. Chickens would not be carrying around ancient reptilian genes that are turned off (you can turn them back on and get reptilian leg bones instead of bird bones) if they were separately created. That chickens have reptilian genes in them tells us they share genetic material with reptiles - they have a phylogeny that stretches back to a shared ancestor in the remote past with reptiles.
So we observe all these lines of evidence that demonstrate species must be related to those in the past and each other. Not a single shred of evidence suggests that species were separately created.
You are a fanatic.