Therein is the rub. The example you supplied not only has a connection with recent history but also entails blood samples of human DNA, thus making the conclusion fairly evident, but not to the extent of "proof."
Simply having "various things in common" is not enough if the theory of evolution is going to hold water. The historical connection ought to be demonstrated. Common forms do not necessarily denote common origins or history. In the case of evolution the trail must be one of consistent change from one species to another. The only thing direct observation has yielded is change to a limited degree.
All this circumstantial evidence is so freely admitted as strict science on the part of evolutionists, but all of a sudden, when proponents of intelligent design infer intelligent design from organized matter (circumstantial evidence), the subject is lumped into the realm of "supernatural," "religious," "mystical," and so forth, even though examples of intelligent design are everywhere, your own posts notwithstanding. What gives?
That's the problem debating creationists -- lack of understanding of what a scientific theory is.
If you want proof, get into math. Otherwise, you're not going to find it in a scientific theory.
but all of a sudden, when proponents of intelligent design infer intelligent design from organized matter (circumstantial evidence)
ID doesn't even qualify as a scientific theory. All you have are untested hypotheses and a series of usually unscientific attacks against an established theory.
There are rules to science, and they are vicious. It's a dog-eat-dog world out there. Don't feel bad if your "theory" gets thrown out and relegated to the quack fringe, because it'll have a lot of company that isn't even religious-based.