Oh, alright. You said this:
The argument goes like this: If X is similar to Y in Z, then X and Y must come from Q.
That is of course false. Leaving aside the structural incoherence (I can figure out what you're attempting to convey anyhow), evolution does not make "must" statements; it makes "the best apparent explanation" statements. Go to the back of the class now.
If it is false, then give me the correct one. It is quite coherent as the variables represent the evolutionary claims of the monkey DNA hypthesis.
You can huff and puff all you want, but unless you make a counter-argument that directly relates to mine (and you didn't), then you have done nothing to counter my argument. Making pejorative insinations about my education (which is probably better than yours) is an ad hominem - another logical fallacy. If you do not want to debate the point based on rules of logic, that is your choice, but you can drop the intellectually superior attitude. After all, I am the one arguing logically. Evolutionists make the claim about monkey DNA, not me. And I am here to point out that that claim is illogical. If it is not, then you need to provide a logically acceptable line of reasoning on their behalf, without resorting to ad hominem which only enhances the illogic of your position.
That is hardly a refutation of my argument. if my structure is incoherent, then you won't mind correcting it will you? Evolutionists have said that chimps and humans come from the same ancestor. Whether they use the word "must" or "may" or "most likely", their claim is illogical in any case, because the hypothesis is illogical. Period. Prove me wrong with logic, not ad hominems - you only discredit your positionm with such tactics. I am a seasoned debater not some amateur that you are used to. If you aren't up to the task, then just drop the bluster and stop responding.