Those movies that show mutants that have special powers and do not look like normal humans are fictional. That is not how mutation or evolution works in real life. In real life, few mutations have any discernable effect alone, and the effects of mutation are only going to be seen after the accumulation of many mutations. Thus, your claim that evolution did not occur because the Galapagos finches did not have scales or vestiges of shells is nonsensical. No scientist would expect to see anything resembling a shell on a bird, because no bird has a shell. The Galapagos finches differentiated from mainland finches as a result of many mutations occurring over many thousands of years in both populations, which eventually resulted in them being different species. Oh, and birds actually do have scales, look at their feet. They are feathery little dinosaurs, and the fossil record suggests that scales were common in all dinosaurs.
The claim that evolution does not exist because we have never seen an animal have offspring that are a new species is a wonderful example of a straw man. No scientist ever has claimed that new species suddenly appear because of an event equivalent to a cow spontaneously birthing a lamb. But Creationists attempt to debunk evolution on that claim all the time.
FYI, the practice of sequencing genomes is a biochemical procedure practiced in many labs, taking advantage of the well-known characteristics of nuclei acids. Analyzing the results using informatics is, again, a completely scientific discipline. The fact that I, personally, have sequenced DNA and used DNA sequence data to conduct analyses of evolutionary relationships on the basis of phylogeny means that you have an uphill battle to prove that these are not valid, objective, repeatable techniques which yield valid data.
Well said!
The anti-evolution argument against "macro-evolution" as opposed to "adaption" or "micro-evolution" is a straw man that very few have argued directly against.
My argument is that in fact there's no scientific difference between so-called "adaption" or "micro-evolution" and alleged "macro-evolution".
They are all the same things, only their timescales differ.
The only distinctions are those we ourselves arbitrarily draw between, for examples, breeds, sub-species, species, genera, etc.