[quote] ...which the eyeball is. [/quote] It is not. 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. At the time the only thing it could make out were very rudimentary shadows at best, but they had a distinct advantage for their ability to process the difference between light and dark and could swim to darker places during the day time to avoid being caught in the intense UV light of the sun. Thus the Bacterium with primitives eyes were naturally selected as the ones without were killed off. This developed over time to first allow bacterium that harvest sunlight to make food an advantage in their ability to find food. Eventually the eye shaped itself to be able to discern light from shadows, thus allowing shapes to form for the first time, such as in the case of the dimple eyed flatworm; this mutation was naturally selected for due to its ability to discern prey from predator. This continued for millions to billions of years until we have the eye we have now; natural selection slowly but surely sculpted the eye; it works because natural selection is the ultimate act of fine tuning in the universe, and when you fine tune for billions of years, things begin to look radically different. It basically goes "this bacterium had protein molecules packed more closely together than this other one, and as such he has 'higher resolution' than this other one, therefore making him better suited for discerning, absorbing and processing light. He will therefore be statistically more likely to get more nutrition and survive and pass on his genes than this other guy." This continues for billions of years. [quote] Hmm...I guess that's why we decided to use organisms that have short lifespans compared to ours such as insects. [/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] Did you not read the experimental section in the OP? [/quote] With regards to small scale adaptations being experimentally verifiable? Yes I did, and I already explained how those small scale adaptations lead to large scale changes. [quote] Obviously false statement is apparently and obviously false. [/quote] Explain how. Bearing in mind I am referring to "macroevolution" as you call it. [quote] who said that most Christians disprove of evolution. [/quote] Not me. [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? But again, human timescales. Geologic time spans for millions to billions of years, and as such there is not usually enough time for any particular trait to revert back due to the removal of a certain environmental factor. The very act of doing so sullies the experiment. The existence of vestigial organs is a counter to your point. Humans for example have a tailbone from when we had tails--in fact the growing fetus has a tail, and even now we have the appendix, even though it's completely useless (and in fact a hindrance due to appendicitis). When something has been there in evolutionary terms for millions of years, it being useless down't make it just revert back to the way it was before. There was a time when human ancestors had tails, but now we do not, yet that bone is still there, more or less identical to the tailbones in apes. [quote] I don't have to explain why this statement is just wrong. [/quote] Clearly you do or I would not have said it. How does the similar relationship between chimps and humans not suggest a common ancestor? [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." Simply because we do not have the Encyclopedia Terrastria on our hand now does not suggest that evolution is wrong; lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack. As a Christian of some intelligence, that is an argument I would bet money that you've used in defense of God. If you know William Lane Craig, than you will have definitely at least have heard it. All things being equal, the gaps in the fossil record do not suggest anything either way for or against evolution, they merely represent the boundaries of our current scientific ignorance yet to be pushed at. [quote] The last one is what Christians are to, well at least I do, depend on. [/quote] And yet 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]" (emphasis yours) You are literally saying "since we can not test it empirically, it is just a fantasy," 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."