It doesn't "look" like evolution. The only reason why it does is because the "experts" are so good at twisting what we can actually see and measure and then claim that they are proof of evolution. DNA similarity is no more support for evolution then phenotype similarity is. Both of them are just as well explained by the fact that when a "Designer" finds something that works, he applies it again and again in multiple places for use in similar ways...but that concept is scoffed at because, well, materialists have found that Ph.D.-backed scoffing does a better job at convincing people that the position of those they are deriding is foolish than anything else.
The facts of the matter are that we do NOT see mutation producing new "genetic language" through freak chance for which natural selection can work on. The examples of bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics as proof that beings evolve and adapt to adverse environmental elements is empty in that these adaptations are accomplished by a LOSS of genetic information (things missing in the genetic code resulting in a resistance to the drug) and not through ADDITION of new chapters of DNA blueprint data to the critters genome.
Mutation is the only means in the evolutionary model by which new data could, theoretically, be added to the genome but many scientists (the more honest ones) now admit that because the rate of beneficial mutation is so low (pretty much Zero) and the number of beneficial adaptations for even so-called simple organisms to have evolved to their present state numbers in the millions, the amount of time needed for our world to have bumbled blindly through time would have to be in Thousands of Trillions of Years....and not the 3.5 Billion years that they tried to sell us all on a while ago.
Furthermore, the entire thing doesn't "look" like evolution from an origin perspective. There's a reason why such a large contingent of scientists believe that the pre-assembled amino-acid sequencees that they feel would somehow "jump start themselves" into life (an impossibility in and of itself which has never been observed and is an embarrassment to data-driven science that so many sign on to this muckity-muck) had to have come from an alien world. The Alien Seed hypothesis exists because so much scientific evidence leads us to believe that there was NEVER a time where the geological conditions on earth would have been such that the first cell could create itself. But do they turn to the logical conclusion of a SUPER-natural creator who has the power to make things the way he wants?
Of course not. Instead they sign up for the idea that the conditions must have been BETTER on a DIFFERENT world and that somehow this world fired debris across the cosmos in such a way that it collided with the earth. We've all heard stories about how in war, when millions of rounds of ammunition are being fired between forces, it's nearly unheard of that those combing these historic battle fields find two rounds which have collided in mid-air. The idea that debris from a "seed planet" was expelled and crossed the cosmos and then struck earth is like the idea of two riffles shooting NEEDLES at each other at ranges in excess of a mile and then these two needles colliding head-on. It's a statistical impossibility yet this is the type of thing that materialists are clinging to in order to keep the evolution-myth alive in the collective consciousness.
0
