Iconoclastic,
StrongHaiku,
You say “a human can or cannot make a "human hand"' still says nothing about evolution or the argument for God.”
That is correct. Because the proposition "Humans can/cannot make a hand (today)" is a different proposition that "Only God can make a hand" or "Evolution is currently the best explanation for how a human hand emerged." Notice that there are 3 different "entities" being addressed. Each of these proposition must stand on their own merit and evidence.
Yes it speaks against evolution, as such sophistication will not come from lower forms (or species)
I respectfully disagree. And, the term "sophistication" is not well-defined and requires quantification. We make some very "sophisticated things" that exceed nature in a number of ways (e.g. airplanes vs birds). We have plenty of examples where we not only match, improve, but sometimes exceed nature.
I think maybe the fact that most of our improvements are based on inorganic matter and often use processes different than nature, that this may be keeping you from seeing the work in the organic areas. If that is the case, you would be surprised on what is being done with creating/printing organs from organic matter, improving on bacteria and virus to do our bidding, and on, and on...
[at a time super-intelligent humans now with all the computer advancement simply fail to even duplicate the dexterity of human hands]
Yes! You got it, "now". You are only looking at our current state and time. Imagine going back a few hundred years ago. Can you imagine what people then would think of what you would say about antibiotics, computers, airplanes, cellphones, etc.? The stuff in your head would either have made you look like a god or gotten you burned at the stake. And, if we can survive becoming an "evolutionary cul-de-sac" we may get to do more amazing things.
There was a time long ago only the "Gods" could fly, make electricity, cure people, etc. However, I get the feeling that it doesn't matter. If we built a human hand (organic or inorganic) I think it would be replaced with another "thing we can't yet make".
When information is lengthened as far as possible (as happened in the case of theory of evolution), you are lost in the ocean of information and you are forced to feel this may be true.
Not sure whether you are trying to make the "information and thermodynamics" argument or whether you are saying that you are overwhelmed with the "ocean of information". If it's the latter, I can understand that. The amount of information and evidence for evolution can sometimes be dense but there a some books that present the subject of evolution in an accessible manner.
When you shorten the information to its essence, as I did in my original post, you will see clearly, what is possible and what is not possible, and what is true and what is false.
No sure what you mean. Sorry.