Granted, humans and monkeys share many common characteristics, but that can just as easily mean they have a common creator instead of a common ancestor. So no, there is nothing that definitively points to evolution. Consider the platypus, which has a bill and webbed feet like a duck, a tail like a beaver, soft velvety fur, milk glands, a large brain, a complete diaphragm, their blood temperature is influenced to some extent by their surroundings, and it is one of only two mammals in the world that lay eggs. Evolutionists do not even have a clue what this evolved from but this is not surprising if it is another product of an infinitely creative God (1 Corinthians 12:18, Psalm 33:13-15) who told us both man (Genesis 2:7) and animals (Genesis 2:19) were made by the same process, though man had the added bonus of getting God's breath of life and more importantly being made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26). Woman was different but she came from man (Genesis 2:21-22) so that still counts. If you don't like the idea of us coming from "dust" then consider replacing that word with the scientific technical term "atoms" which weren't officially discovered for a few thousand years after this was written.

[ AIG: The echidna enigma and the platypus puzzle ]
[ AIG: Still more questions than answers for evolutionists ]

Actually there is no proof at all. There is nothing even close. Business evolves, technology evolves, and processes evolove because inteligent people motivate them to. Biological evolution dictates that in general more complex life forms come from simpler life forms. Specifically this means that the DNA of living things must gain information over time. The second law of thermodynamics and 28th theorem of information defy this. What people are actually referring to when they cite proof for evolution is either "mutation", "natural selection", or "genetic variation." All of these phenomenon have been observed, evolution has not. Creation, by the way, was observed. See Job 38:1-38 and Deuteronomy 4:32.

• Mutation is random destabilization of DNA often caused by external factors (such as radiation.) Destabilization by definition is destructive, not constructive. Even if a mutation ends up being beneficial it is still caused by a loss of genetic information, so this is the opposite of evolution.
• Natural selection involves certain characteristics of a particular species breeding more than others which results in a formerly rare characteristic becoming common. However in this situation no new information has developed, only rare info became common.
• Genetic variation is where each parent provides half the genes for the new baby, resulting in a new combination. This is not the same thing as mutation because information stored in our DNA isn't randomly being lost, we simply only get to pass on half our genes when we reproduce. (Of course mutation could also occur at this same time and would be more damaging to a life form with one or just a few cells than would be to an organism with trillions of them.) And it's not evolution because no new information is being created. The informaiton is just being passed on and two [hopefully] diverse living organisms merging into one new one (Genesis 2:24).

As of early 2012 this is my new creation themed mantra: "Encoded usable information never increases without the aid of intelligence (think DNA.)"

[ PhysLink: What is a simple definition of the laws of thermodynamics? ]
[ In the Beginning was Information: Information in Living Organisms (includes 28th theorem of information)]

All the complexities of a biological system must exist together because the components are useless separate and must all be functional at once for the system to work at all. Examples of this include: flight, sight, sexuality and hearing. DNA is another example because you need the encoded information, a system to decode (read) the information, a system to write the information (reproduce it) and a system to utilize it all appearing at the exact same time because each of these systems alone or even all but one of them is utterly a waste (Psalm 94:9, Psalm 139:14, Proverbs 20:12).

Up until the mid 1600's people thought that life could form spontaneously. One "proof" for this was the situation where maggots would form on dead animals. Mold was probably another. In the mid 1800's Louis Pasteur made the final proving experiment that killed this philosophy. I do not know that evolutionists had too many hopes in this philosophy, but either way now all their eggs are in one basket. They have to believe that the first cells came from sludge and the next ones evolved from simple to complex. But just because they are single, even single celled organisms are not simple. To get by this evolutionists place a distinction between "protocells" and the first cells. Protocells being truly simple and full cells being comparable to teeny cities or factories, with all their specialized functions of energy production, waste disposal, repair, reproduction, etc. Except the development of protocells into full cells is no easier to believe (or prove) than the development of single celled organisms into multicell organisms.

Not only do observable living things only come from other living things, as proven by Mr Pasteur, but God (who is alive) gave the first creatures their life about 6,000 years ago. On day 5 He created sea dwellers and the birds (Genesis 1:20-28) and on day 6 He created land dwellers, most notably including man (Genesis 2:7) and woman (Genesis 2:21-22). Further, this was not an isolated incident but God continues to be the source, sustainer and enabler of all life (Deuteronomy 30:20, Nehemiah 9:6, Ezekiel 37:4-10).

[ AIG: Life from life... or not? ]
[ AIG: God & Natural Law ]
[ Catholic Encyclopedia: Biogenesis and Abiogenesis ]
[ Wikipedia: Biogenesis ]

[ The Molecular Impasse of Evolution ]
[ How Single-Cell Organisms Evolve into Multicellular Ones ]
[ Bacteria and single celled organisms (forum) ]
[ Wikipedia: Microorganism ]

---