I'm just going to point out some of the most obviously wrong things in this post. 
1.  "experts in the natural world of what's happening currently (or the recordable past)"
Financial advisers are supposedly experts in what will happen in the future, right?  Not the present.  At the very least, I wouldn't call mechanics and financial advisors experts in the NATURAL world. 

2.  "as if they couldn't just be artificial bones our ancestors created for fun"
NO THEY COULD NOT.  Are you high?  You're really suggesting that thousands (and millions) of years ago people had the ability, let alone inclination, to make FAKE BONES and leave them around for us to find? 

3.  "evolutionary "scientists" can never effectively test his theories"
This is very wrong and exposes your near-total ignorance of the subject.  A scientist can theorize, "I bet that if I put a bunch of bacteria in a type of food they can't eat, they will evolve to be able to eat it."  (They did evolve.)  A scientist can theorize, "Based on my theory, given our fossils of Species X and Species Z, there should have been a Species Y, which will look like such and such if we find the fossils of it, and should have lived in such and such a time and region, and not outside of that time and region."  And then if people find the fossils where the theory says they could be, it looks better; and if the fossils are found in a completely different place and indicating a completely different era that the animal lived in, it gets contraindicated. 

4.  "veterinarian"
Those were general examples, you clod.  He doesn't know whether you have a car either, but you didn't jump on him for the mechanic. 

You literally change your argument every single time you post and then get offended when you struggle to type what you actually mean.

"Oh dude by random I didn't mean random"

I'm inclined to agree with a deterministic Universe, but I don't claim certainty in this regard as you seem to be. Maybe you didn't mean it? 

The traits that are passed are not random in any way, they come straight from your parents.

Okay now you claim that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is random, yet already said randomness doesn't exist. Which is it? Stick to a position, you're jumping around like a kid with ADHD.

Can't be bothered to read the rest.

"New concepts and information from molecular, developmental biology, systematics, geology and the fossil record of all groups of organisms, need to be integrated into an expanded evolutionary synthesis. These fields of study show that large-scale evolutionary phenomena cannot be understood solely on the basis of extrapolation from processes observed at the level of modern populations and species. Patterns and rates of evolution are much more varied than had been conceived by Darwin or the evolutionary synthesis, and physical factors of the earth's history have had a significant, but extremely varied, impact on the evolution of life." (Carroll, Robert L. [Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology, Redpath Museum, McGill University, Montreal, Canada], "Towards a new evolutionary synthesis," Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 2000, Vol. 15, pp.27-32, p.27)

"The changes within a population have been termed microevolution, and they can indeed be accepted as a consequence of shifting gene frequencies. Changes above the species level-involving the origin of new species and the establishment of higher taxonomic patterns- are known as macroevolution. The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No." (Lewin, Roger [biochemist, former editor of New Scientist and science writer], "Evolutionary- Theory Under Fire: An historic conference in Chicago challenges the four-decade long dominance of the Modern Synthesis," Science, Vol. 210, 21 November 1980, pp.883-887, p.883).

"Darwin's proposal carries a more general message for contemporary discussions of macroevolution, namely that microevolution alone cannot explain macroevolution." (David N. Reznick and Robert E. Ricklefs, "Darwin's bridge between microevolution and macroevolution." Nature 457:837,838,841, Feb. 12, 2009)

"Evolutionary biologists have long sought to understand the relationship between microevolution (adaptation), which can be observed both in nature and in the laboratory, and macroevolution (speciation and the origin of the divisions of the taxonomic hierarchy above the species level, and the development of complex organs), which cannot be witnessed because it occurs over intervals that far exceed the human lifespan. . . . [from the abstract] "Macroevolution posed a problem to Darwin because his principle of descent with modification predicts gradual transitions between small-scale adaptive changes in populations and these larger-scale phenomena, yet there is little evidence for such transitions in nature. Instead, the natural world is often characterized by gaps, or discontinuities. One type of gap relates to the existence of 'organs of extreme perfection', such as the eye, or morphological innovations, such as wings, both of which are found fully formed in present-day organisms without leaving evidence of a transition between them. These discontinuities, plus the discontinuous appearance and disappearance of taxa in the fossil record, form the modern conceptual divide between microevolution and macroevolution. . . . "Most evolutionary biologists think that Darwin explained macroevolution simply as microevolution writ large. In fact, Darwin had rather more to say about the relationship between microevolution and macroevolution and invoked additional principles to define it. . . .
"Darwin's proposal carries a more general message for contemporary discussions of macroevolution, namely that microevolution alone cannot explain macroevolution." (David N. Reznick and Robert E. Ricklefs, "Darwin's bridge between microevolution and macroevolution." Nature 457:837,838,841, Feb. 12, 2009)

I decided to focus on randomness because you were focused on it. I was going to disregard this thread at the point I was inaccurately rebuted but you brought it back up. I never flat out said nature was random and I never called evolution random. I was explaining the definition of random I was using as I could not really think of another word that would fit that well in the last post. "Chaotic" perhaps or maybe "with degrees of uncertainty" may have fit now. I have also been trying to word my arguments so that they could fit a determinist, materialist ideology and was trying to take persons out of the equation since those would cause the differences between a libertarian and deterministic universe. I probably should have put that "traits are passed on to surviving generations" as in like natural selection. On Heisenberg principle, read the full sentence. Considered does not mean is. It just means people may think that it is. Like you seem to consider other's arguments wrong without considering your own argument wrong or insufficient when reading. 

I suspect the guys you quoted are talking about differences in the predominating evolutionary pressures at micro and macro scale, not that they are completely different processes.

[edit:  I'm calling bullshit on the eye springing forth fully formed without evidence of transition.  In fact, I seem to recall there being a famous Darwin quote describing transitional phases that exist in various creatures.]

[edit2:  Voila!  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter6.html

Organs of extreme perfection and complication. To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.

In looking for the gradations by which an organ in any species has been perfected, we ought to look exclusively to its lineal ancestors; but this is scarcely ever possible, and we are forced in each case to look to species of the same group, that is to the collateral descendants from the same original parent-form, in order to see what gradations are possible, and for the chance of some gradations having been transmitted from the earlier stages of descent, in an unaltered or little altered condition. Amongst existing Vertebrata, we find but a small amount of gradation in the structure of the eye, and from fossil species we can learn nothing on this head. In this great class we should probably have to descend far beneath the lowest known fossiliferous stratum to discover the earlier stages, by which the eye has been perfected.

In the Articulata we can commence a series with an optic nerve merely coated with pigment, and without any other mechanism; and from this low stage, numerous gradations of structure, branching off in two fundamentally different lines, can be shown to exist, until we reach a moderately high stage of perfection. In certain crustaceans, for instance, there is a double cornea, the inner one divided into facets, within each of which there is a lens shaped swelling. In other crustaceans the transparent cones which are coated by pigment, and which properly act only by excluding lateral pencils of light, are convex at their upper ends and must act by convergence; and at their lower ends there seems to be an imperfect vitreous substance. With these facts, here far too briefly and imperfectly given, which show that there is much graduated diversity in the eyes of living crustaceans, and bearing in mind how small the number of living animals is in proportion to those which have become extinct, I can see no very great difficulty (not more than in the case of many other structures) in believing that natural selection has converted the simple apparatus of an optic nerve merely coated with pigment and invested by transparent membrane, into an optical instrument as perfect as is possessed by any member of the great Articulate class.

He who will go thus far, if he find on finishing this treatise that large bodies of facts, otherwise inexplicable, can be explained by the theory of descent, ought not to hesitate to go further, and to admit that a structure even as perfect as the eye of an eagle might be formed by natural selection, although in this case he does not know any of the transitional grades. His reason ought to conquer his imagination; though I have felt the difficulty far too keenly to be surprised at any degree of hesitation in extending the principle of natural selection to such startling lengths.
]

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-world-famous-chemist-tells-the-truth-theres-no-scientist-alive-today-who-understands-macroevolution/

A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution


Professor James M. Tour is one of the ten most cited chemists in the world. He is famous for his work on nanocars (pictured above, courtesy of Wikipedia), nanoelectronics, graphene nanostructures, carbon nanovectors in medicine, and green carbon research for enhanced oil recovery and environmentally friendly oil and gas extraction. He is currently a Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Computer Science, and Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science at Rice University. He has authored or co-authored 489 scientific publications and his name is on 36 patents. Although he does not regard himself as an Intelligent Design theorist, Professor Tour, along with over 700 other scientists, took the courageous step back in 2001 of signing the Discovery Institute’s “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism”, which read: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

On Professor Tour’s Website, there’s a very revealing article on evolution and creation, in which Tour bluntly states that he does not understand how macroevolution could have happened, from a chemical standpoint (all bold emphases below are mine – VJT):

Although most scientists leave few stones unturned in their quest to discern mechanisms before wholeheartedly accepting them, when it comes to the often gross extrapolations between observations and conclusions on macroevolution, scientists, it seems to me, permit unhealthy leeway. When hearing such extrapolations in the academy, when will we cry out, “The emperor has no clothes!”?

…I simply do not understand, chemically, how macroevolution could have happened. Hence, am I not free to join the ranks of the skeptical and to sign such a statement without reprisals from those that disagree with me? … Does anyone understand the chemical details behind macroevolution? If so, I would like to sit with that person and be taught, so I invite them to meet with me.

In a more recent talk, entitled, Nanotech and Jesus Christ, given on 1 November 2012 at Georgia Tech, Professor Tour went further, and declared that no scientist that he has spoken to understands macroevolution – and that includes Nobel Prize winners! Here’s what he said when a student in the audience asked him about evolution:

… I will tell you as a scientist and a synthetic chemist: if anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me, because I make molecules for a living, and I don’t just buy a kit, and mix this and mix this, and get that. I mean, ab initio, I make molecules. I understand how hard it is to make molecules. I understand that if I take Nature’s tool kit, it could be much easier, because all the tools are already there, and I just mix it in the proportions, and I do it under these conditions, but ab initio is very, very hard.

I don’t understand evolution, and I will confess that to you. Is that OK, for me to say, “I don’t understand this”? Is that all right? I know that there’s a lot of people out there that don’t understand anything about organic synthesis, but they understand evolution. I understand a lot about making molecules; I don’t understand evolution. And you would just say that, wow, I must be really unusual.

Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science – with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public – because it’s a scary thing, if you say what I just said – I say, “Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from, and how this happens?” Every time that I have sat with people who are synthetic chemists, who understand this, they go “Uh-uh. Nope.” These people are just so far off, on how to believe this stuff came together. I’ve sat with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. Sometimes I will say, “Do you understand this?”And if they’re afraid to say “Yes,” they say nothing. They just stare at me, because they can’t sincerely do it.

I was once brought in by the Dean of the Department, many years ago, and he was a chemist. He was kind of concerned about some things. I said, “Let me ask you something. You’re a chemist. Do you understand this? How do you get DNA without a cell membrane? And how do you get a cell membrane without a DNA? And how does all this come together from this piece of jelly?” We have no idea, we have no idea. I said, “Isn’t it interesting that you, the Dean of science, and I, the chemistry professor, can talk about this quietly in your office, but we can’t go out there and talk about this?”

If you understand evolution, I am fine with that. I’m not going to try to change you – not at all. In fact, I wish I had the understanding that you have.

But about seven or eight years ago I posted on my Web site that I don’t understand. And I said, “I will buy lunch for anyone that will sit with me and explain to me evolution, and I won’t argue with you until I don’t understand something – I will ask you to clarify. But you can’t wave by and say, “This enzyme does that.” You’ve got to get down in the details of where molecules are built, for me. Nobody has come forward.

The Atheist Society contacted me. They said that they will buy the lunch, and they challenged the Atheist Society, “Go down to Houston and have lunch with this guy, and talk to him.” Nobody has come! Now remember, because I’m just going to ask, when I stop understanding what you’re talking about, I will ask. So I sincerely want to know. I would like to believe it. But I just can’t.

Now, I understand microevolution, I really do. We do this all the time in the lab. I understand this. But when you have speciation changes, when you have organs changing, when you have to have concerted lines of evolution, all happening in the same place and time –not just one line – concerted lines, all at the same place, all in the same environment … this is very hard to fathom.

I was in Israel not too long ago, talking with a bio-engineer, and [he was] describing to me the ear, and he was studying the different changes in the modulus of the ear, and I said, “How does this come about?” And he says, “Oh, Jim, you know, we all believe in evolution, but we have no idea how it happened.” Now there’s a good Jewish professor for you. I mean, that’s what it is. So that’s where I am. Have I answered the question? (52:00 to 56:44)

Advanced degrees relevant to the topic mean I am qulified to provide courtroom testimony as an expert witness on the subject.  You are an internet formun poster that is spouting nonsense.

Creationism has presented no tangible evidence.  Zero peer reviewed articles, no published data sets, no evidence of any kind.  They have produced a bunch of silly laughable propeganda that only a half wit would subscibe to.  When their evidence was presented in a court of law it was found not to be science by the courts (recently in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District).  You cling to the notion that the two are somehow equivelent by spouting more nonsense each time, there have been numerous intermediary species found between homo spaien and the nearest common ancestor with the other chimpanzees.  The link from human to ape is zero steps long, we are one of the species of apes, along with the two other chimpanzees the gorrilla.  You niether understand what constitutes science nor philosophy.  Natural scisnces are a branch of philosophy, one based on empirical methods and hard evidence. 

Please continue to rebut and show the vastnes of your ignorance as an object lesson.

@ OooSnap:
Before I respond, don't you have anything to say about my earlier response regarding the eye? If all you're going to do is copy/paste "evidence against evolution" from the Discovery Institute or whatever, and ignore all replies, then I would rather not waste my time.

That guy is in no way a biologist. I'm sure he's a great chemist but his skepticism is not much more convincing than an expert mechanic's.

As for the Dissent list, which has accrued a certain amount of infamy, "Robert T. Pennock notes that rather than being a "broad dissent", the statement's wording is "very narrow, omitting any mention of the evolutionary thesis of common descent, human evolution or any of the elements of evolutionary theory except for the Darwinian mechanism, and even that was mentioned in a very limited and rather vague manner."" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism#Responses
(Also, a lot of the people on that list are not actual scientists, and have you heard of Project Steve?)

I'd like to say a few words to each of you: 
allenmaher, I agree with you and respect you, but I'd respect you more if you could spell.  If you're drunk-posting or something, then never mind, I guess. 

Rushida, like I said, I agree with everything allenmaher said.  Additionally, I suspect you don't even know what you mean when you say "every intermediate species".  There have been many, many species found in between humans and what you think of as "apes" (even though we are still apes) as well as dead end species.  I suspect you would like scientists to have to dig up a skeleton for every single generation in between "hairy ape" and "Stone age man" but even you ought to know that is silly. 

Moving on, you need to understand that creationism is not even remotely in the same category as science.  Scientists don't have to "disprove" creationism, their job is to make theories and poke holes in theories and make better theories.   Creationism in the sense of "boom God waved his hand and animals were there" is not a theory, but it does invite questions like "then why do animals look like they are related to other animals and have vestigial limbs etc."  If creationists don't like it when scientists poke holes in creationism then they should stop pretending their beliefs are scientific theories. 

By the way, I found something interesting on that "Uncommon Descent" page OooSnap likes. 

There’s a saying that a picture is worth a thousand words. Here’s a photo of the skeleton of a Great Dane, next to a Chihuahua: Apart from size, there’s not much of a difference in the skeletons, is there? “What about a human being and a great ape?” you might ask. Here’s another picture, showing a human skeleton and a gorilla skeleton. Not so similar, are they?

YES, THERE IS JUST AS MUCH SIMILARITY between the human/gorilla skeletons as there is between the chihuahua/great dane skeletons IMO.  In both cases, the structures are somewhat distorted, and the skulls in particular are fairly different, but the overall stuff is the same.  Same leg bones (different proportions), same rib cage (different shape, more so with gorilla/human), different shape/size of shoulder blades, etc.  It is obvious they are related but they are also clearly not just differently sized individuals, unless one or both are severely deformed from the normal state. 

Anyway, I think it's hilarious that they tried to use those pictures to showcase the DIFFERENCE between the two comparisons, while I see how similar they actually are.