Arguing that there is no proof for Jesus is as good as arguing that there is no proof of the Roman Empire.
Answers in Genesis did the heavy lifting of dissecting and compiling the host of scientific evidence that counter the theory of evolution. It is unbecoming of an intellectual to fail to recognise scientific facts for what they are, and to disregard them because of their usage in a particular scientific debate. Saying "we are here because of a naturalistic origin of life" and "there is a naturalistic origin of life, hence we are here" is circular. The Bible confirming itself is not, because all it takes is a single self-contradiction to defeat its self-consistency. Aside from misinterpretations from erroneous contexts and poor understanding of journalistic reporting (which all don't qualify), there are none. Working from the axiom of a good God who does not lie and can not lie, the accusation of circularity is also voided.
The Wiki entry on eugenics says nothing that contravenes the tenets of evolution. Where we have natural selection in nature to weed out the unfit and weak, we have human agents who aid the process along via artificial selection along the same principle - weeding out the weak and the unfit by rendering them unable to reproduce.
First off Answers in Genesis is a heavily biased for obvious reasons. Second plenty of people believe the Jesus the man was real, but a man ONLY and not some supernatural figure. There is zero evidence of any of the supernatural events from the bible, and yet again NO the scriptures do not count as evidence.