Evolution is not supported with scientific evidence (2)

My contention is that evolution can’t happen and there is no evidence supporting the idea that it ever happened in the past. In Round 1, Con was supposed to explain and provide evidence for evolution. Since he has failed to do so, his opening argument has been shifted to Round 2. Because Con has not explained how evolution can happen and has only provided supposed proof that evolution has happened in the past, my no-beneficial-mutations argument still stands. Also, Con has not rebutted or provided a response to my fossil gaps argument. In his next argument, Con will defend the evidence he has brought up, and won’t add new evidence or arguments. Refutation of Proof of Evolution Happening Con has provided 3 alleged evidences for evolution: genetic similarities, embryological recapitulation, and evolutionary throwbacks. Con argues that different animals share genetic and structural similarities, showing descent from a common ancestor. It is a fact that such similarities exist, but they in no way prove a common ancestor. Instead, similarities might be the result of a common designer. Two different Microsoft Programs would have thousands of similarities in their code, because of a common designer. It is a fact that similarities exist. Different people can interpret this fact in different ways. The evolutionary interpretation is that similarities are the results of common descent, whilst the Creation interpretation is that similarities are the results of a common intelligent designer. Con’s job is to provide strong evidence that could not be explained from a Creation viewpoint. “If, then, it can be established beyond dispute that similarity or even identity of the same character in different species is not always to be interpreted to mean that both have arisen from a common ancestor, the whole argument from comparative anatomy seems to tumble in ruins.”—Thomas Hunt Morgan, “The Bearing of Mendelism on the Origin of the Species,” in Scientific Monthly (1923). Is con suggesting that if Creation were true, all animals would absolutely have to have completely different amino acids, proteins, cells, tissues, organs, structures, and fluids? That would be pointless, silly, and wasteful. Additionally, the reason why two animals would have more genetic similarity than others is because the two animals have more similar bodies than others. It has nothing to do with ancestral similarity. Similarities would be expected from Creation. Similarities would also be expected from evolution. Thus similarities can’t directly prove either one. The situation is the same with similarities in embryos of different organisms. It is true that embryos of humans and other different animals all look similar during the beginning of development. They all start as tiny balls and gradually grow and develop different parts. However, instead of these similarities proving common descent, they could reveal that the same intelligent designer planned and devised how these embryos would start out and how they would progress. (https://answersingenesis.org...) Next, Con explains that human embryos have gill slits which disappear before birth, proving that humans evolved from fish. This idea is called the “Biogenetic Law”, that human embryos go through different stages and recapitulate features from other animals in their evolutionary pasts. Human embryos develop gill slits from fish, yolk sacks from chickens, tails from lizards, etc. I am surprised that Con would use this as evidence, since the theory has been proven to be completely false and fraudulent. It was first contrived by Ernst Haeckel who faked drawings and charts of human and animal embryos to push his theory. In 1874 Haeckel’s hoax was exposed and shown to be a big lie by embryologist Wilhelm His, Sr. Yet despite the recapitulation theory being disproven, it is still pushed in public school textbooks today, supporting evolution. (http://creation.com...) “The biogenetic law has become so deeply rooted in biological thought that it cannot be weeded out in spite of its having been demonstrated to be wrong by numerous subsequent scholars.”—Walter J. Bock, Science, May 1969 [Department of Biological Sciences at Columbia University]. Later, Haeckel was even convicted with fraud at his own university. “At Jena, the university where he taught, Haeckel was charged with fraud by five professors and convicted by a university court. His deceit was thoroughly exposed in Haeckel’s Frauds and Forgeries (1915), a book by J. Assmuth and Ernest J. Hull.”—James Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard, p. 112. Since Con has only mentioned gill slits, that is the only recapitulated feature I will refute. The so-called “gill slits” are not gills at all, but are instead folds in the skin that later develop into ear canals, parathyroids, and the thymus gland. Lastly, Con mentions that humans sometimes born with tails, proving that humans evolved from ape-like ancestors. Although caudal appendages have been observed in humans, it is misleading to call them tails, as in fully functioning tails without any anatomical drawbacks. This is because these supposed tails that humans are born with are never able to complete tasks that normal animals’ tails should be able to such as grasping or picking up objects. “None of them—and none of the reports in the literature that I know of—are actual tails. A tail has vertebrae, is a continuation of the coccyx, has developed muscles, nerves and other soft tissues, etc.” —Michael Egnor, “The Myth of Human ‘Tails’: A Physician and Surgeon’s Perspective”, in Evolution News and Views (2014). In fact, many of these “tails”, if not just lipomas, are due to birth defects such as dysraphism and meningocele. Nearly always, these caudal appendages come with seriously harmful side effects. Arshi Ali Khan, a teenager in India, is one of the most famous people known for his supposed tail. However, due to partial paralysis, Khan can not walk. Others who are born with these appendages also face major medical challenges. These “tails” are not “evolutionary throwbacks” but are instead due to improper development of the spinal cord and in no way resemble the perfectly functional tails of other mammals. (http://creation.com...) Con has brought up 3 supposed proofs for evolution: similarities (which don’t prove evolution at all), embryological recapitulation (which was simply disproven over a hundred years ago), and human “tails” (which aren’t real tails but are instead spinal malformations). I think I have thoroughly refuted or explained all three. Also, Con hasn’t addressed the problems concerning evolution that I have shown in the second round. In his next argument, Con will attempt to defend his 3 evidences and won’t be able to bring up new evidences, as was explained in Round 1. Sources: Listed throughout argument.