[AnotherUnixGeek]

No! I’m saying none of it can be proved.

And I'm saying that the mass of evidence allows us to draw reasonable conclusions, subject to new evidence. That's what science has done with the theory of evolution.

By respected webb site I suppose they are respected because they support your contention.

No, I'm not that important. They're respected because of the real science they've done.

I know of no fossil supporting evolution that could not just as well support other theories

What are these theories and how does the fossil evidence support them?

Every living organism shares some DNA with every other living thing this does not mean one is evolving into the other.

So what does it mean? Why create living things which all share DNA to varying degrees? Why ensure that chimps share more of our DNA than any other living creature?

Find an example where one species became another. i,e. Two cats mated and produced a dog.

I don't think this scenario is even possible under the theory of evolution. But if we could observe long enough, we'd see that dogs and cats once had a common ancestor.

[dartuser]

Why create living things which all share DNA to varying degrees?

I like to think God is fond of software reuse.

[RightWhale]

‘Why’ is not an Aristotlean category question. It is a figment of our syntax that asserts free will and purpose, which makes the question both improper (in its propriety) and incorrect.