well, being a generous man, I will cut you some slack as to your own level of ignorance. Any cursory reading will reveal that the old “strengths” supposedly found in homological studies have become weak at best and non-existent at worse. Those a hundred, hundred fifty years ago can be forgiven, their studies only in the beginning stages. Surely you don’t believe similarities in embryos, early bone structure development without exception “proof” common descent or even similar outcome. Might as well as being used to prove descent with modification could it not also indicate design, an archtype of some sort? Merely having a series of successive forms does not provide it’s own explanation. Similar genes aren’t a slam dunk, because different sort of genes in similar animals can product quite different features, or similar genes can produce quite different results. A some frogs and some birds can be quite similar in appearance in earlier embryonic stages yet enter the world looking radically different. To give an example, a very similar gene produces the eyes of fruit flies, the octopus, and mice. Similarity does not equal replication. There are scores of land animals that appear homologically similar at early stages that turn out to almost totally dissimilar upon full growth.