[quote]The eyeball is the result of an age old mutation in ancient aquatic life forms, specifically a bacteria, that gave the organism a protein molecule that could absorb and process light.[/quote]The interesting part about this theory is that it's hypothesized, meaning that it can neither be verified nor observed using the scientific method. In a laboratory, the variant in species can be observed, and it's genetics can be altered, but it has never been observed to develop a new function. While the story appears to have plausibility, it still isn't yet able to be proven because of it's in-capability to be observed. Anyone who has spent some time reading or debating creationists is almost certain to hear the argument that “evolution is just a theory." Though this statement is technically correct – evolution is indeed a theory – people who do not understand the implications of that word as it is used in science often think it is saying something different from what it actually means. The important thing to keep in mind is that the everyday definition of the word “theory” is different from its scientific definition, since it is intended to be used under a different connotation. In common usage, theory often means something like “guess” or “hunch." However, in scientific circles, this is not the case. To scientists, a theory is an explanation of some feature of the world that meets three requirements: it is supported by evidence, is testable and falsifiable, and can be used to make predictions. Your "story" doesn't meet any of the requirements, among it even less of a theory than evolution already is. Atheists often claim that the "scientific" theory of evolution passes with flying colors, when in reality it only observes the changes in variants, which is explained in the OP.[quote]This continues for billions of years.[/quote]How do you explain the cosmic dust study?[quote]In a micro scale, evolution is more readily apparent as changes happen more quickly, due to generations having vastly shorter life spans. Take bacterium for example. They're constantly splitting into new "children" via asexual reproduction, and all it takes is a single benevolent copying error, as was the case of the first protein molecule that could absorb sunlight for the first steps of evolution to begin. Most mutations are unhelpful, even harmful, but through billions of years this process reaches an inevitability that a mutation will be beneficial. It only has to happen once.[/quote]...and it must continually be present not only in the generations but also in the environment that the organism is in. Unfortunately, these studies have proven that these adaptive processes must be under constant biological restraints that often force the new genetics to be copied incorrectly and then hopefully the genetics is benevolent in very case and in every generation.[quote][quote]The subjects that were tested were insects. Not only did the organisms have obviously short lifespans, but they also adapted to their environment splendidly, but when the environmental factors were removed after generations of "evolution," they reverted. That's the issue.[/quote]Do you mind citing a source on this?[/quote]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2554870/[quote]The existence of vestigial organs is a counter to your point.[/quote]Not all the vestigial organs are useless; it has been proven so. What animal are you assuming has no coccyx? Are you going to assume that if you find an animal without one, it had no tail in it's species supposed generations? The coccyx is used as a support to which muscles bind to in order for humans to remain in an upright position. It also attaches to the muscles that help get rid of waste. Why do you think no doctor has recommended as a "vestigial" organ than can be removed?[quote]How does the similar relationship between chimps and humans not suggest a common ancestor?[/quote]There are huge gaps in transitional forms, and the creatures are apparently dumber than the latter.[quote][quote]...which contains not even at least 100 transitional forms for even one species in the span of four and half billion years.[/quote]As I go on to say, there are gaps. If you want your God to fill in the gaps, than God is an "ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance."[/quote]I don't expect him to. That job is for the atheistic community.[quote]Simply because we do not have the Encyclopedia Terrastria on our hand now does not suggest that evolution is wrong.[/quote]As I'm often told.[quote]...lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack.[/quote]Really?[quote]As a Christian of some intelligence, that is an argument I would bet money that you've used in defense of God.[/quote]Yes, but it is still favored in archeology, non-biblical history, and in some political sciences.[quote]...you are the one who claims that because "Without such a demonstrated creative process, evolution is merely a story, [b]because its supposed mechanism can neither be duplicated in a laboratory nor observed in nature.[/b]" You are literally saying "since we can not test it empirically, it is just a fantasy..."[/quote]Yes, since you are an advocate for the fact that everything that we are today are naturally developed; thus, it requires such empiricist-like methods to verify it's logic.[quote]...which is a self evident hypocrisy since at the same time you cite the Bible as evidence of God, a God that we have no means to verify empirically; the Bible is, as it turns out, "just a story."[/quote]God is not natural; thus, any attempt of physically studying him will always be null and void since He intended for us to only use His Word. If we can't prove to you that He exists through any empirical means, we will then use logic.