No point.  If the only acceptable proof is that which you can touch and feel then you're obviously prepared to toss out the majority of scientific theories and developments. 

You could conceivably argue that all of science is faulty because much of it uses mathematics to make predictions, and yet that is also a completely artificial construct which has historically included many problems and assumptions that one couldn't touch or feel. 

A short response to your position is that you completely misunderstand how systems develop and consequently evolve.  In viewing every biological structure as a singular event you're clearly misunderstanding how growth and development occur.  In truth you know your example of a kidney is simply silly since it doesn't take much imagination to see how a kidney-like function could development in an animal which then ultimately evolved to split into two entities.  There is no explanation of "half" of anything required.  In fact, it might well be argued that there may have been more than two kidney-like organs at some point and that evolution scaled them back and became more "efficient".

However, we've been around this block before, and I know you aren't really interested in an answer as much as you want to simply argue about the inadequacy of every explanation offered.  So, until you're prepared to actually spend some time seriously learning biology, there isn't much to offer.

Sorry, Perry but you can twist and turn all you like, but in the end there is a difference between the "impossible" and something that is simply of low or finite probability.  Using an even simpler example, a Royal Flush is a low probability event, but five aces is an impossible one (for a single deck game).  Also, your charge that evolutionists "careful use of certain terms" is some sort of ploy.  In case you haven't noticed, words do mean something and they should be used with care.  In one post you used the words "impossible" and "miraculous" for events that clearly weren't. 

So while you can introduce all manner of fantastic explanations, the simple reality is that a low probability event has a possibility of occurring especially if the timeframe is long enough.  (In other words, you would be virtually guaranteed to win the lottery given enough time).

However, despite your claims that everyone is evading the discussion, the reality is that you invoke God as if that's some kind of answer.  I understand the nature of faith and the role it may play in a person's life, but I am not prepared to simply roll over and grant a free pass, as if this were some sort of proof of anything.

An individual's belief or disbelief shouldn't enter into it, so when you suggest that biology is full of godless individuals, you're suggesting that it is only with a belief that we can understand the world.  This is patently false since belief has nothing to do with fact.  If you could produce one scintilla of evidence that the world operates according to your view then the information would be independent of your personal beliefs, but that can't be done (or you've intentionally neglected to provide it).

Despite evidence to the contrary you still can't understand that the fact that individuals born without hands or arms provide ample evidence about the adaptability (not in an evolutionary sense) of people (and animals).  This clearly indicates that a living organism does the best is can with what it is provided. 
In addition, we've already been around the argument that ID also requires that bacteria and all the other things that can kill us must also have been designed.  But that part I find disingenuous is that if you got an infection, you'd probably want to be treated by an antibiotic that was developed with the concept of evolving bacterial strains in mind.

Not sure what your reference to teenagers is, but in truth I've raised five of them (the youngest is now 25). 

But enough of this.  If you have evidence that is counter to biological theory, then please feel free to present it.  At present, you've offered nothing except poking fun at biological theories.  While you may find this entertaining,  the absence of your own position is becoming a bit obvious.  If you're only going to advance red herring arguments or invoke a supernatural explanation, then you already know where that will lead because it is no explanation. 

However, I will state that for a religious person, I find your attitude in terms of ridiculing what you don't understand, showing disrespect, and generally being a wise-guy all too common in those of the "faith".

Only if one is prepared to total suspend belief and invoke the supernatural.

The point you keep missing is that regardless of how improbable something may seem, the fact that it occurred (like the eye) indicates that there must be some possibility of it occurring.  I am not prepared to throw up my hands and say that "magic" is the only way.

Regardless of how the IDers want to phrase it, that's what it is in the end.  A total suspension of reality and a supernatural operation completely outside the "laws" of nature. 

As for my beliefs, I'll concede that I am not a believer (in the Christian sense), but I know many people that are, but only a handful that live according to those beliefs.  I will also admit that I have beliefs that would never stand the scrutiny of scientific inquiry, but that isn't the purpose of my beliefs.  They are not, and never were intended to reflect scientific truths, but only to provide a framework with which I personally engage with the world and to help me deal with the events that confront everyone.

I don't find a contradiction with scientists that have personal beliefs (religious or otherwise), just as I indicated my own views in the previous paragraph.  However, a scientist that attempted to elevate their beliefs to a scientific level would be subject to the scrutiny and requirements of proof as the elevation of any idea in that arena.  As I've stated repeatedly, the problem isn't with your beliefs, but rather that you expect them to be given scientific credence on nothing more than your faith.  Regardless of what you may think of evolution, it provides a framework and continuously mounting evidence in support of its fundamental principles.  While there may be aspects that are wrong, they will eventually be adjusted as new information is discovered.  Even, if by chance, a completely new theory would replace it and Darwin shown to be completely wrong, it would not negate the biological knowledge currently acquired and it certainly wouldn't automatically default into the "magical" realm. 

As for your other questions, there's no point because if I were competent to articulate every aspect of these functions then I would be venturing into some areas that may still be unknown and it would also presume that you were competent to understand the answers.  Neither of which I suspect is true.

Most of your questions are simply variations on the "irreducible complexity" argument which is seriously flawed (although I know you don't think so). 

Despite what you say regarding the "miraculous" you actually make living things mundane when you relegate their existence to the whims of a divine entity.  The sense of awe I feel when viewing biology comes from the fact that I accept that this is the way the universe works and not that we are simply the end product of some divine designer.

Michael still has that pasty white skin

When the Steelers go all Blitzburgh on the
Cleveland-Browns-In-Louder-Clothing (AKA the Ravens) this Sunday, I
shall also be eating Doritos