Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

Mutations will not function as providing adaptive properties, as they are random.Yes, and "Lottery tickets can never provide a winner because they are random". Except that we know that they do all the time. In fact I've already given an example of such a case which you have already conceded.Your arguments are terrible in most every instance, if they are not downright idiotic or false.Do you know what random even means? Randomness does not and cannot imply impossibility, only improbability. It is never logical to make an absolute statement of any kind using probability unless that probability is 1:1.The chance of me rolling a 5 with a die, is about one-in-six, but if I roll the same die twice, my chances double, if I roll it a hundred times my chances are even better. The chance that a given mutation will result in a beneficial mutation is small, but hundreds and thousands of mutations later, I'm going to get a few that actually are. This is not even a question anymore.Many of the systems do illustrate irreducible complexity, as they would not function properly or at all without all of the parts being in existence.All of the examples you list do exists in to various degrees, in other organisms, and all of the traits which make up these systems can and are beneficial independently of these systems. You like nearly all other creationists ignore the fact that such traits don't have to have the same function, just as long as it has a function. For example, a semi-formed wing even if it cannot provide flight it can still be beneficial for gliding. An eye which sees in black and white is better than no eye at all. A light sensitive cell is better than one that isn't. et cetera.I am stating that there would be no reason for primitive man to develop advanced mental capabilities.Yes, but this is not an argument. It's a statement of opinion. Nothing you said supports this opinion. verbal communication being useful in other animals in no way supports this statement. Should I just take your word for it? You need to provide something substantial to support this opinion. You just stated that there wouldn't be a reason, you never said why.Of what possible use would personalities and many if not all emotions serve from an evolutionary standpoint?Emotions communicate to other members of the same species. Fear for example may communicate to other members that there is a potential danger nearby. Anger may indicate a conflict within a group, that needs to be rectified. This is an argument from ignorance. You are saying that because YOU cannot think of a use or cause for emotions, that is could not have evolved.It is unfortunate that there is no fossil evidence of the trials that resulted in no gainEvery extinct species ever discovered.I am quite aware of this. An simpler explanation of my point would be to state that such information is useless without any capability for it to be processed into whatever the particular segment might indicate. Indeed, the ability to process the information depends on already possessing it. However, DNA must provide a sequence that serves a function, or it is useless. How, then are we to assume that it arose in any understandable manner, rather than useless strands such as those found during a mutation?Apparently you aren't aware of it, because you continue to say the same thing you've just changed the wording of the argument.You can call it reading, processing, translating, comprehending, ciphering but you are still saying the same thing.I am telling you that this is not how DNA works. There is no ciphering or processing organelle in cells, nor would there be a need for them. The same reason why raindrops don't need to calculate trajectory before falling to the earth, the molecules are simply responding to what is there (namely gravity).