How creationism explains babies with tails

Did you even think this one through?What grows around the human embryonic tail? What is it a placeholder for?

None of this explains why we see a nested hierarchy, and why the developmental vestiges like the human embryonic also fall into the nested hierarchy. We don't see human embryos start to grow a beak and then reabsorb it. We don't see fish embryos grow fur and then reabsorb the fur prior to developing into an adult. What we do see is the emergence of ancestral features that fall into evolutionary lineages.As to similarity, this couldn't be further from the truth. A supernatural deity could have made two species that are almost identical but use completely different codons. Two species could differ genetically by more than any two species observed right now and still be almost identical. The human embryonic tail does not go on to develop into a tail in the adult like it does in other species. Therefore, it is vestigial by definition. We know what it DOES NOT DO which is more than enough to determine it's vestigial nature.As an example, you might see a TV with bullet holes riddled through it and consider the TV to be without function. If I tied a rope to the TV and use it as a boat anchor would that refute your argument? No. The TV has an obvious function that is defined by it's features. If it does not serve that function then it is not functioning. The human embryonic tail does not develop into a tail, therefore it is not functioning. It is vestigial.

The problem here is that there is not a nose gene, an eye gene, a mouth gene, etc. Morphological structures are the result of thousands of genes interacting with each other through space and through time between many cells, some of which are terminally differentiated and some of which are pleuripotent. IOW, it is much more complex than you think.The closest we could come would be to compare the master genetic switches which are commonly called the homeobox genes, or HOX genes. We could compare the divergence in these genes compared to metabolic enzymes such as the cytochrome genes. The devil is in the details. You could argue that both birds and bats have wings, therefore birds and bats should share a more recent common ancestor than bats and dogs. However, this ignores the specifics of how each wing is designed. The two wings, while superficially similar, are actualy quite different in their specific makeup. With the bird wing we see a feather covered airfoil constructed mainly from the humerus, radius, and ulna. In the bat we see a membraneous wing that is stretched between the phalanges and only minimally involves the upper limb. We see two different designs for the same function which indicates convergent evolution in separate lineages. This is due to horizontal genetic transfer, something that is extremely rare in more complex species such as vertebrates. That is not true. You would expect that all vertebrates would be equidistant from bacterial cyt c while fish cyt c would be closer to horses than to bacteria.