First of all, why do you babble about proofs regarding scientific matters in the first place, especially regarding biological matters that are not subject to direct observation? Proofs pertain to mathematics and sometimes to logic. The scientific method proper is not used to prove things. It tentatively verifies or falsifies things at best, most especially regarding biological questions that are not subject to observation.
In any event, are you implying that the common ancestry of your metaphysical presupposition of biological naturalism can be scientifically demonstrated?
In the meantime, and this is the point that exposes the disingenuousnous of your evasive shuck and jive, the evidence would look virtually the same whether biological history were a series of evolutionary events per a common ancestry or a series of creative events per a common design over geological time!
Of course, it's that admission that you're avoiding or pretending not to grasp. I see right through you.