First: When the research of chimp DNA and human DNA is found to be "SIMILAR" what does that mean? Of course, a common ancestor.
Second: When the research of chimp DNA and human DNA is showing "DIFFERENCES" what does that mean? Of course, this is Evolution. Because it shows the "Changes" that occurred between chimp and man.
You are oversimplifying, so far that the meaning is lost.
When the DNA research shows a consistent pattern of less or more similariites that mathches the pattern of common descent and the phylogenetic tree inferred from the fossil recordm which matches the pattern of common descent and the phylogenetic tree derived from zoology, then we conclude that the DNA evidence supports common descent. If there was a significant mismatch, we'd have a problem.
When the
pattern of DNA differences clearly shows mutations, dupications, etc ... that match the above, then we conclude that the differences are evidence for evolution. If the differences didn't have such a pattern, we'd have a problem.
So you are wrong ... we
can lose, we just
haven't lost.
We can just as easily say:
Similar DNA means , common DESIGNER and
Differences of DNA shows, the designer "CONSCIOUSLY" created variety.
Yes, you can say that ... but when it comes to backing it up and explaining
why the alleged designer chose to design in such a wacky way, that looks just like something cobbled together over and over again from existing parts, that is so differnt from any other designs we know in that it has the characteristics of an evolutionarily-produced system, that has the patterns that match the other phylogenetic trees so well, that clearly indicate changes over time from common ancestors whether or not that really happened ... well ... the IDists abandon science and say "we can't know the mind of the designer" or they just abandon the discussion.