You: How is it such a blinding revelation that things that group have similar genes?
It isn't; the thing that's so amazing is that the *little details* in the genome *always* group into the same tree structure as the earlier anatomical, biogeographic, etc, studies showed. The simplest explanation for this is that the mutations occurred once and were inherited. IE, that baboons, chimps, apes, people, et al (or cows, hippos, cetaceans...) have a common ancestor.
And how can something be called a mutation if you did not witness the mutation?
Consider the famous GLO sequence: If a single base pair is added to the genome of people, or that of chimps, gorillas, et al, It would be almost identical to the corresponding sequence in other mammals, and we would be able to make our own vitamin C. Again, the simplest explanation is that a single base pair was dropped from the genome of a common ancestor, and that the common ancestor (and all its living descendants) ate fruit or other vitamin C rich food so that the mutation was effectively neutral.
Similar animals have similar genes.
The simplest explanation for this is that the mutations occurred once and were inherited. IE, that baboons, chimps, apes, people, et al (or cows, hippos, cetaceans...) have a common ancestor.
That is only necessarily true if you assume evolution in the first place. The idea that they have a common ancestor fits the observation of their genes. The observation of the genes does not mandate a common ancestor.
Again, the simplest explanation is that a single base pair was dropped from the genome of a common ancestor, and that the common ancestor (and all its living descendants) ate fruit or other vitamin C rich food so that the mutation was effectively neutral.
In the framework of evolution.
But none of this has anything to do with the most credible criticisms of evolution.