picking out one paper and saying that it had the facts to answer the question posted. A question so simple that a schoolchild could answer it.
The paper I posted does answer the question. A schoolchild should be able to answer it.
In order to rule out creationism it is not necessary to show the definitive answer to a specific challenge. Let's say you come across a stone arch for the first time in your life. You have no idea how it could be built because it would obviously fall down at every stage until the keystone is in place. Therefore you conclude that god made it. In order to prove that you are wrong I only have to demonstrate one possible naturalistic answer. I might show how it could be built using a wooden scaffold that was then dismantled. It doesn't matter at all if somebody else insists that it was built using a mound of sand and somebody else is certain it was built using a pile of earth.
Any naturalistic answer that works proves that supernatural answers are unnecessary.
The same goes for your rather odd objection that the loss of hair contradicts evolution. You have listed 12 reasons - any one of which proves you are resorting to superstitions. Well done!
Science has transformed the world for the better. It really works. It makes predictions and tests them. It does everything possible to disprove its own assumptions and throws out what doesn't work. It is based on methodological naturalism.
In other words every mystery ever solved turned out not to be magic.