A common argument for Evolution is the genetic similarity between similar organisms. Animals that share common design also happen to share common genetics. Therefore, Evolution.
The first issue with this argument is that the similarities are exaggerated, and the differences are downplayed. This, in itself, should show that Evolutionists aren't especially confident in their own arguments. But more importantly, it is a complete non sequitor.
A non sequitor is a conclusion that does not logically follow from the previous statements. It could be that the conclusion is just one of many possibilities, or it may even be that it is not even a possibility. The fact is, there are multiple other reasons organisms that share common design share common genetics.
To illustrate this, consider the verses shown in the header image. The first is from the Qur'an, the primary religious text of Islam. The second is from the Bible, the Holy word of the Living God. Both of these verses are similar. They both describe God as the first and the last. And indeed, as they are both religious texts, both books contain numerous similarities. However, they did not evolve over time through a process of random copying errors or typos. They weren't even originally written in, or translated from, the same languages.
The genetic code is, in effect, a language in which the instructions for building a living organism is written. Because of this, we would expect there to be similarities between the genetic code of living organisms that share similar features, just as we would expect there to be similarities between religious texts (or indeed, any text) written in English. The problem with the Evolutionist idea is that it lacks a writer.
Let's apply the logic of the Evolutionist to religious texts. First, we have to come up with a mechanism by which the English language (ignoring other languages for simplicity's sake) could even come into existence. To this day, Evolutionists have failed to come up with a mechanism by which the genetic code could come into existence. But let's just skip that (as Evolutionists love to do), and pretend we have started with something as simple as "God is the first and the last".
With our starting phrase, how do we get to either Qur'an 57:3 or Revelation 22:13? Let's get a lecture hall of 500 students. They look at the screen and type down what they think they see. First problem? Most of them are going to get it right, and so the phrase will stay the same: "God is the first and the last". Those who don't? To fully simulate Evolution, which is not an intelligent entity, we're going to assume they completely lack the brains to correct the phrase so it makes sense. If they end up typing some gobbledegook like "God is thy fasty loose", so be it. What's the problem here? Natural selection.
Natural selection, though it is commonly seen as the mechanism by which Evolution happens, is actually the very reason it cannot. Just as a student typing gobbledegook is not going to pass a class, non-beneficial mutations are unlikely to be passed on to the next generation. There are rare occasions when mutations provide some benefit, but these are nowhere near common enough for Evolution to happen over such a short time. Even if we accepted the Evolutionist idea that life is over 3 billion years old, there simply would not have been enough time for the diversity of life on earth today to have arisen randomly.
By far the superior explanation for the similarities between living organisms is that God wrote multiple "books" in the same language. Man is one "book". Chimps are another. Bananas, with which we share approximately 50% of our DNA, are another. Similarities do not prove Evolution, they show that God is an efficient designer who saw no need to reinvent the wheel just to avoid the creation of yet another religion. The sad fact is, it wouldn't even have succeeded. All that would have happened is sinful men would have used the alternate design to make another claim.