The idea that genes which resemble each other are therefore descended from each other is exactly the kind of logical error that the theory of evolution is predicated upon. Just because something looks like something else doesn't mean they are related. We can only assume that they are related if we first assume that all species are descended from one common ancestor, which you already admitted may not be true at all. Thus the whole facade of evolutionary theory collapses under the weight of its false premises.
Change may be inevitable, but change is not one species evolving from another species. Fossil evidendce shows that humans have changed over time, but they always changed into more humans, never into something else.
One can believe in evolution and believe in God, but if one does not believe in God, then they have a psychological need to believe in evolution. Thus they cling to their irrational and unscientific belief in evolution despite all the evidence that has disproved the theory.
I don't need to study up on evolution at all, I am very familiar with all the arguments. I studied them in college and found them unconvincing then and now. You even admitted that I was right that observing speciation does not prove that every animal speciates. It also does not prove that every animal came from speciation.
I did not appeal to the authority of the Pope to declare evolution true - I used him as a contrary example to the formulation that one cannot accept evolution and be a Christian.
I point out that most creationists ALSO believe in speciation - when they need to - and with dramatic speed and power. That is also not to support my acceptance of evolution - but to point out how rare it is to encounter someone so blind to reality that they deny speciation.
Just because something looks like something else doesn't mean they are related - but endogenous retroviarl sequence patterns provide a ton of evidence that they either are or are not closely related. That is how ignorant you are of modern biology - you think we are still looking at morphology? Ridiculous!
Contrary to your statement otherwise it is obvious that you are unfamiliar with science, evolution and biology.
Would you listen to a non-mechanic telling you that an internal combustion engine cannot provide the necessary power to propel you 60 mph? As such I take any advice from you about the utility of biological evolution - words unbacked by knowledge and unaware of the reality of the situation. In other words - worthless.
Change is inevitable - therefore evolution is inevitable. What is going to stop it? What would stop a 2% change in genetic DNA from accumulating in two separate populations over several million years?
That is like proposing that two groups that speak the same language will still speak the same language after being separated for a thousand years. Bloody hell mate, we hardly even speak the same language as the English after a couple hundred years and a ton of traffic between we and them.