***BZZZZZTTTT!!!! Wrong.
A testable prediction is made based on the hypothesis of common ancestry (high correlation of genes if the hypothesis is true; chance-level correlation of genes if it the hypothesis is false). Observations are then compared to the predictions (in this case, the observation confirms the truth of the hypothesis).
Really, the fact that anyone needs to explain this belies your claim to know anything about science.
Really, the fact that anyone needs to explain this belies your claim to know anything about science.
Er, actually the snippet posted by Soliton was attempting to argue from the opposite direction - that because of the massive amount of differences in the genomes of humans and chimpanzees, we can somehow argue that this is "evidence" of a common ancestry. If nothing else, the fact that I need to explain this to you shows that your reading skills are subpar, if nothing else.
Further, there is nothing in a prediction of similarity between human and chimpanzee genomes that could not have just as easily been predicted by an IDer on the basis of creation, using a homostructural argument. There really is not. Simply choosing to dismiss it because it is not materialistic is, in and of itself, illegitimate. After all, once again, the simple similarity of genomes between the two is not, itself, suffficient evidence of common origin. To reach that conclusion DEMANDS reliance upon the philosophical assumption of evolutionism.