Yes we can.
Even if the universe was created, independent creation of “fully formed animals” is inconsistent with the data. You have no explanation for consilience of independent phylogenies.
You’re welcome to give a model of separate ancestry that has the same predictive and explanatory power as common descent. Be careful to show that it actually predicts something, for example about the fossil record.
Substitution biases, consilience of independent phylogenies in everything from the sequences of shared similar genes, comparative anatomy, to embryology and molecular functions. You have no explanation for ANY of this. You have no explanation for why scientists can experimentally reconstruct ancestral genes and show their functions are consistent with expectations given what we know from geology and the fossil record.
What you have are complaints about the very method of science itself (parsimony and falsification are out the window with your methods), and you have appeals to gaps and appeals to ignorance.
Diametrically opposite to demonstrable fact. Every piece of “new sequence data” further confirms already accepted models and hypotheses about evolution and universal common descent. Particularly the endosymbiotic theory for the origin of the mitochondrion during eukaryogenesis, and members of lokiarchaea as closest extant relatives to the ancestors of the endosymbiotic host. Simpler antecedents of many previously unique eukaryotic systems and molecules have been found in the lokiarchaeota.
You don’t know anything about the field and you are talking out of your rear end and you should be embarrassed about it.