>1. So, you don't think that we should be able to closely examine each process
>to assess if its genetically possible/probable with what we know today?
No, I believe scientists should and ARE doing exactly that. It takes a lot of time and work, and they are up to it right now.
>2. No, the simple fact is that the evolutionary premise being a reasonable
>explanation for novel and more complex traits to appear is utter nonsense.
But you don't have any evidence to support this conclusion. In fact, it's false. Scientists have evidence that it DOES happen that way.
>3. So, if you can't answer THE very question of how evolution actually
>works, there is no real debate (as we are seeing here).
You did not ask THE very question of how evolution works. You are asking a question about the details of a particular process that haven't been discovered yet. That is not only NOT the question at hand, but the current lack of an answer does not inhibit the understanding of how evolution works AT ALL.
>1. Since you admit that no one knows yet how evolution works,
Nobody has done any such thing. Nobody knows yet the specific genes that changed to make changes in the auditory system over time, as you are requesting. This is one example of an evolutionary process, but it is not the only one. The lack of particular knowledge about that process, like I said, does NOT preclude the understanding of how evolution works in general.
>3. How interesting that it always come back to God
How interesting that you or John always bring it back there, when the answer could STILL be purely naturalistic.
Can you prove that the process you describe can NOT be a natural process? No, you can't. All we know is that we don't know how THAT PARTICULAR change occurred, in what order, and which specific genes changed - which is what you're asking for.
>1. First, you claim that asking for detailed explanations of how
>evolution might possibly occur is unrealistic.
For the particular process you outline, that is absolutely true.
>2. Then, you ask if we are ready to receive them when they come?
Simply because you cannot prove that they are NOT naturalistic. We can propose that they are, for reasons and mechanisms we have all outlined multiple times to you.
>1. Did you know that science didn't and doesn't need an evolutionary
>foundation in order to understand its mechanisms?
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution"
- Theodosius Dobzhansky
So sorry, you're wrong.
>3. Do you believe that all supernatural phenomena must be ignored and only
> "practical" theories, even those without any evidence, should replace them
>and be elevated as fact?
Yes, all supernatural explanations must be excluded in the field of science.
Any "practical" theory without evidence would not be a theory at all, it would at best be a hypothesis.