SPQR put forth two:
the fossil record which shows transitional fossils for most life on Earth including man and ape evolving from a
When evolutionists appeal to the fossil record, they almost always appeal to the vertebrate portion, despite the fact it is the most incomplete portion, a sliver representing less than 1 in 10,000 of all fossils, where 95% of vertebrate species are represented by a bone or less! In the portion that is leaps and bounds more complete where we have catalogued literally millions of intact specimens, the invertebrate portion, you very seldom get examples. Why, because there is no evolution in the fossil record! Evolutionists have to appeal to the incomplete portion so that they can use wild imagination to turn bone fragments into evolving wolves, evolving simians, etc.
You appealed to ape/man common ancestry. Which Ã¢â‚¬Å“hominidÃ¢â‚¬Â fossil appeals to you? How many people at one time appealed to (or were duped by) Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Neanderthal, Ramapithecus, etc only to have them overturned? SPQR, do you think Lucy is a good candidate?
For a more thorough expose of the illusion, please see my article, Exposing the EvolutionistÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Sleight-of-Hand With the Fossil Record.
humans share roughly 97% of their DNA with chimpanzees
Even at 97%, this still represents 90 million base pairs. Evolutionists themselves have shown mathematically how remarkably difficult it is to fix even a single positive mutation in a population, let alone 90 million! From HaldaneÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s dilemma we know that at most ~1600 could be fixed in 10 million years (double the alleged ape/man split), and this was even after using completely unrealistic assumptions in favor of evolution!
Further exposing the illusion comes from direct comparisons between apes/humans that yielded a mutation rate so high that each breeding couple through the evolution process would have had to produce 60 offspring, just to maintain the population size! See my article on this:
SPQR, note that a leading geneticist who regularly publishes in the major science journals agreed my article uncovers a Ã¢â‚¬Å“serious problemÃ¢â‚¬Â for evolution. Even if there is some explanation pending for this, why were you unaware of this problem? Why are kids who go to our public schools not given this information so they can make up there own minds? The point is, 3% difference is still way, way too much difference! But our kids are not told that. 97% similarity sounds compelling after all, so just tell them that part and keep the rest from them. IsnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t this indoctrination, not education?
BTW, a recent, direct segment comparison (1.8 million base pairs) yielded only 86.7% similarity . Do you realize that if this number is accurate, the number of offspring in my mutation rate article would balloon into the millions!
Why again do you believe in evolution?
 - "Comparative Sequencing of Human and Chimpanzee MHC Class I Regions Unveils Insertions/Deletions as the Major Path to Genomic Divergence," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100.13 June 24,2003): 7708-7713.