Susuto

“It appears that you’re trying to point out the dynamic aspect of evolution, but the fact remains, lower to higher speciation is still very much in the evolutionists jargon.”
So are you finally giving a definition of “higher” and “lower” as the relative height of “branches” on the “tree of evolution” illustration? Do you know what “height” on that tree refers to? The passage of time. In that respect, we absolutely do have evidence of evolution to so-called “higher” (or, more specifically, “later”) species, just as with my foraminifera examples, or with hyracotherium, or cetaceans, or the origins of modern feathered birds from lizards by way of archaeopteryx (or one of its contemporaries), the evolution of mankind and other hominids from a common ancestor, or many other examples for which you seem blissfully unaware. We could just as easily add a “branch” to that tree going from, say, standard E. Coli upwards to Cit+ E. Coli, or from standard flavobacterium up to nylon-eating bacteria, or from classical staph bacteria up to MRSA, etc.
I’ve said it before, your ignorance of the evidence does not mean that the evidence does not exist.

“The article also refers to randomness in evolution which you of late have also been denying.”
That you think evolution itself as random only further underscores your complete lack of understanding of the subject - variation is random, yes, but selection is decidedly NON-random. Thus, evolution is the non-random survival of randomly occurring traits.
When I spoke of the bogus creationist probability calculations, I was not speaking of evolution proper, but rather the flawed mathematics the creationists use - their simplistic calculations do not accurately model the physical world and all of its nuances. They make the flawed assumption that everything is totally random in their calculations, which ignores not only the non-random nature of selection, but also the non-random nature of the way chemicals interact.
Do try to keep up.

“Texas public school biology classes teach evolution, the theory that humans evolved from lower forms of life.”
The Dallas News is not a peer reviewed scientific publication, and the sensationalist publication style of its reporters does not adhere to scientific terminology or even basic rigor. Further, the Theory of Evolution is not about humans, it is about all life. The article fails.

“You doubtless saw the phrase in an official biology journal, ‘evolution of organisms of higher complexity’”
Your use of the term “higher” in this case is at odds with your previous use - on the “tree of evolution” illustration, “higher” simply denotes the passage of time. In this case, “higher” denotes “more”. We have a great deal of evidence of more complexity in organisms cropping up through time as well, especially and dramatically through the foraminiferans and their perfect-and-continuous fossil record, as well as through the fossil records of other species. So, which is it - are you wrong because of complexity, or because of change over time? Pick one use of the word “higher” and stick with it.

“So your vehement denials of ‘higher complexity through evolution’ in evolutionist terminology have now been substantially debunked!”
I never claimed that greater complexity could not be achieved through evolution - in fact, as I have said in this posting, we have a great deal of evidence of exactly this occurring in the fossil record. Do not try to pigeon hole my statements about your uneducated and non-specific use of the terms “higher” and “lower” into something that seems to fit your case now, especially since you can’t even decide on what exactly those terms means yourself yet. Your statement here is blatantly dishonest.
This is not to say that the Theory of Evolution dictates that life must *necessarily* become more complex as it evolves - we also have many examples of the opposite, for various definitions of the word “complex” as it applies to evolutionary biology.
How would you define “complexity” in biological terms? Number of genes? Some quantitative measure of traits? Some other factor(s)?

“(Little wonder that evolutionists are trying to distance themselves from Darwin.)”
We’ve had 150 years since Darwin in which to further study evolution, and we have learned a great deal that shows Darwin was wrong about a number of things. Again, we see the self-correcting nature of the scientific process.

“In that short exercise of perusing evolution articles, it was intriguing to notice the high degree of uncertainty and disagreement within the field of evolution. That tells me it doesn’t have two legs to stand on (NPI).”
Your misunderstanding of the scientific process, especially peer review, is truly staggering, as is your ignorance of the evidence for a field that you have demonstrated you do not comprehend even the basics of. Were you reading peer reviewed scientific publications, or articles like that Dallas News fluff piece that don’t have to stand up to peer review, and can say whatever they want to help sell advertising space?
In any case, the uneducated opinion of a self-deluding and vastly ignorant luddite like yourself has no bearing on the field of Evolutionary Biology, or the evidence that field uses.

“What drives you folks to continue to placing your faith in something so impotent?”
Your inability to understand the science of Evolutionary Biology does not make the field impotent, nor does it mean that a field of peer-reviewed, evidence-based science requires faith.

“Try the unbiased exercise I mentioned earlier…”
Again, your proposed exercise was inherently biased, as it requires belief in the supernatural prior to the performance of the exercise as a condition for results - confirmation bias anyone? No matter how many times you assert otherwise, it is not, nor shall it ever be, objective evidence for anything.