That is one of the main methods used to make 'evolution' appear stronger than it is. Talk about imaginary past events as though they are real. It fools the little evos every time.
That's why you are confused. It's not that difficult to understand.
In reality, the concrete evidence is the same with the only difference being the interpretations that are layered over that evidence.
I used this example on another thread: If a genetic marker is found in both cows and whales, but is not found in horses, tell which category each animal goes in: 1) will definitely have the same marker. 2) definitely won't. 3) not enough data. People, pangolins, 'possums, pigs, platypuses, camels, cats, hippos, rhinos, elephants, zebras, giraffes, dogs?
The ToE can answer questions like this. So far, it's answers have always been confirmed by actual genetic testing.
This obviously has nothing to do with past events.
Creation is equally valid as an explanation of the evidence as evolution. The evos are terrified to admit that fact though because they realize that they would lose all credibility if it became widely known.
No. Neither the ID nor the creationist faction of the anti-evolution coalition can answer the above questions (or many others of a similar nature) correctly. This shows that neither one is as powerful as standard biology. This fact, coupled with the fact that neither one is a scientific theory, shows that they have no place in science classes.
You categorize animals according to their ability to interbreed, not based on genetic markers.
It is only because you have assumed 'common descent' that you think genetic markers mean anything.
Where they are similar, they are purported to be 'conserved'. Where they are different, they are assumed to be 'not conserved'.
Means nothing at all.