Evolutionary Tree

[Fake Messiah]

Except that evolutionary theory has not predicted things dead on the money (the fossil record and the tree of life are examples that come to mind).

Evolutionary theory didn't predict fossil record?!!! What unlike the fucking Bible that predicted.... what exactly?! Well that's what you get when your education comes from christian web sites and catholic schools. In first place a theory to be considered scientific, it must be testable and make verifiable predictions. Theory of evolution can't predict how things will evolve in the future. Rather, it predicts what we should find in living or ancient species when we study them.
If we see that birds and reptiles group together based on their features and DNA sequences, we can predict that we should find common ancestors of birds and reptiles in the fossil record. Such predictions have been fulfilled, giving some of the strongest evidence for evolution.
It also predicts as we dig deeper layers of rock would contain the fossils of more primitive species, and some fossils should become more complex as the layers of rock become younger. If on the other hand there was a creation we would find human bones with trilobites mixed together.

Or imagine this: marsupial evolved around 80 million years old in North America. But how could they come to Australia 10 million years ago? At the time of the marsupial invasion, South America and Australia were joined as part of the southern supercontinent of Gondwana. So scientists predict this: there should be fossil marsupials on Antarctica dating somewhere between 30 and 40 million years ago. Which made them go to Antarctica and find marsupial fossils aged 35 million years old.

Yes this was all predicted by science and not the Bible. In fact for creationists to explain stuff like that it would have to propose that there were an endless number of successive extinctions and creations all over the world, and that each set of newly created species were made to resemble older ones that lived in the same place.

When it comes to comparing human and chimp DNA one of the common ways are if you gradually heat DNA, there comes a point - somewhere around 85°C - when the bonding between the two strands of the double helix breaks, and the two helices separate. When you lower the temperature fragments of DNA will find other fragments with which they can pair, and they will usually not be exactly their original partners. And indeed, if you add separated fragments of DNA from another species, fragments of the single strands are quite capable of joining up with fragments of single strands from the wrong species. Then you test the strength of the bond by how lower under 85°C hybrid DNA will break. So human strand has bonded with a chimpanzee strand will break just below 85°C, unlike human and toad. Each decrease by 1°C is approximately equivalent to a drop of 1 per cent in the number of DNA letters matched
Of course there is  newer method of measuring the similarity between a pair of matching genes from different species is the most direct, and the most expensive: actually read the sequence of letters in the genes themselves, using the same methods as were used for the Human Genome Project.

So you have stuff like GLO enzyme (for making vitamin C) which is defunct in humans because a single nucleotide in the gene’s DNA sequence is missing. And it’s exactly the same nucleotide that is missing in other primates. The sequences of human and chimp GLO, for example, resemble each other closely, but differ more from the GLO of orangutans, which are more distant relatives.

Or own DNA contains thousands of viruses that inserted their genome that are the remnants of ancient infections. Some of these remnants sit in exactly the same location on the chromosomes of humans and chimpanzees. These were viruses that infected our common ancestor. Since there is almost no chance of viruses inserting themselves independently at exactly the same spot in two species, this points strongly to common ancestry.