Evolution Argument:
The idea that nature allows this to happen without human intervention is no
surprise or cause for alarm to me. I think it is obvious that nature
allows some mutations to survive because of the practical application of a
mutation over those without such a mutation. A rabbit with a slight
mutation in its legs may be allowed by use of the mutation to run faster and
thus survive more often. If two rabbits with such a mutation get together
and breed, then you have evolution the new mutation may take over or form a
sub-species. the length of the leg would seem to be part of a complex design
that is too complex to map, but if you map it one mutation at a time it is
easy to understand.

My response:
Characteristic changes are not equivalent to mutations. Almost 100% of the
time, mutations are destructive to the species. The exception is macro
evolution which isn't actually mutation. Color changes and in the case of
virii, mutation does not change the species, only the 'strand'. A virus is
still a virus. A peppered moth is still a peppered moth. Improved
conditions may bring out better characteristics, but it does not show
evolution. Mutations - especially in the animal world - are commonly known
as defects. When a baby is born as a mutation, is it ever a positive
change? Where are the new mutating races that should be evolving to make us
better? Cross breeding rabbits to force characteristic changes is not
evidence for evolution. A rabbit will always be a rabbit. Once again we go
back to my same argument. You are pointing to researchers that purposefully
force breeding selection - often by artificial insemination - to genetically
alter a species. This is intelligent intervention and far from proves that
the world was created without design.

Another fact about breeding to enhance changes is the 'gene ceiling'.  Breeders
use selective breeding to bring out desired traits.  During the first few generations
these traits will improve dramatically and then the changes will rapidly slow down
and eventually cap off.  Why?  Because breeding for traits does not add new
genetic code, it can only bring out different combinations of what is already present.
A good example of this I've borrowed from Charles Colson's book 'How Now Shall
We Live'.  Darwin began breeding pigeons to show how changes within species
can occur.  He theorized that the rapid changes that he observed over a few
generations indicated that over billions of years it was conceivable that these
changes could create a new species of bird.  What we now know and have proven
is that pigeons, like all animals, have a limit.  Darwin was able to selective breed
to bring up fantail, cropped and other breeds of pigeons descending directly from
the common Rock pigeon.  Never was he able to go beyond the genetic ceiling once
the traits capped out.  What is more, when pigeons are left to nature, they always
return back to the common Rock pigeon within a few generations.

There are only so many combinations the DNA can hold for each trait.  It is scientifically
impossible to cross that DNA barrier without a mutation.  Almost all mutations are
deformities and do not enhance the species but usually are incapable of survival.   Even
nature itself rejects the idea of mutation.  Many animals will destroy or neglect an
offspring that shows a mutation. 

Jumping back, I would like to mention another example Colson presented that illustrated
the gene ceiling.  150 years ago sugar beet farmers began an effort to increase the sugar
content in the beets.  By intelligent selection, they were able to get the sugar content from
6% to 13% within a few generations.  Over the next 75 years they were able to increase
this to 17%.  Over the next 75 years the sugar content remained at 17%.  It is common
to get rapid change under the right conditions at first, but these changes slow down just
as rapidly and eventually hit the barrier that DNA cannot cross.  Selective breeding
cannot add genetic code - it can only manipulate what is already present.  Once that has
been done it can go no further.

To add to the dilemma of the breakdown of evolution, when traits are exploited, the plant
or animal becomes vulnerable to disease and sterilization.  This counters Darwin's theory.
If natural selection were true, the species should become stronger and more capable of
survival.  This is not the case.  The more a specialized trait is enhanced, the greater the
likelihood the species will die off.  It becomes clear that the natural return to the norm
is a designed characteristic to protect the species.  Left to itself, nature will eventually
return a breed to the common species.

I don't know how much of my information you read, but in one article I point
out the absolute necessity of amino acid formations just to allow a cell to
support life. The simplest life form contains over 500 different amino
acids. The unique problem with life is that only left-handed molecules are
used in living cells. Intelligent researchers working in climate controlled
labs and artificially perfect conditions can produce amino acids, but no
researcher has ever formed a left-handed amino acid. The odds of one amino
forming by chance is astronomical. For the simplest self-sustaining life
form, 500+ different types of specialized aminoes are needed. The odds now
go from astronomical to impossible.