In the context Cofty’s writing, is does. He referenced attributes of the animal and all attributes have a specific purpose
So, you are now telling me what Cofty meant? Also, since you've studied so much science (I know because you've told me!) you should know by now that using a laymans definition is a science discussion leads to much confusion. I'm sorry, but... you don't get to speak for Cofty nor decide that a valid use of a word isn't.
That depends on which evolutionary theory we are discussing, but let me rephrase. The deeper I study the biology of the human body, it becomes relatively clear that it is engineered and designed and has not evolved from nonadaptive causes, mutation or genetic drift (i.e. by chance).
No, it doesn't and if you think the human body was designed, it simply means God is a sh*tty designer.
The complexity and purpose of stem cell generation is pure genius. It is simply biological coding, the structure of the cell can be modified by giving it a new set of instructions (DNA/RNA).
So, if you're going to tell me life must have a designer, you probably shouldn't begin by telling me how complex it is and really simple. You're assuming purpose and complexity and then claiming it to be simple. You don't get both.
Although, I do not deny the evidence of evolutionary factors on many organisms, the fact remains that there is no empirical evidence to support evolution jumping species. In other words, a fish is fish, a mammal is a mammal and humans did not evolve from some aquatic species
That is blatantly untrue. This tells me that, without a doubt, you did not study evolution in depth as you claimed to.
That is why I started by saying, “we can probably argue this till the cows come home.” However my point is that it is plausible, and actually more reasonable to theorize that if the universe came into existence as the Big Bang, it did so by the initiation of the creator as opposed to just happening. Nothing “just happens” which is why we have science, to study and provide answers to the “why”.
No... that's what "no evidence" means. You have no argument, you no facts. You have a belief, which you can say you believe, awesome, but there is no objectively verifiable arguments, no evidence you can introduce. You're pretending something is more reasonable by way of "I believe this thing" rather than evidence and facts.
Basically, you're entire argument is one from personal incredulity.