You are missing my point, which is that ALL of the human attributes seem to have arisen gradually by prosaic natural processes and there is no reason--Descartes's Principle or Second Law of Thermo or anything else--to think that such is impossible, especially given the utterly crushing preponderance of evidence (the link you are humoring me by reading) that it happened in straightforward cause-and-effect ways. The link was furnished to you in specific rebuttal of the following statement by you:
And as far as Ockam’s Razor – what is the theory of evolution if not an endless stream of conjecture with still-unfulfilled information gaps?
IOW, you have now made the claim that evolution is not the interpretation to be favored by an Occam's Razor analysis of the evidence. You made the claim. The Theobald article swats it out of the park. Your claim that I'm getting confused looks funny to me.
When I confronted your/Descartes's "Causal Reality" principle with the zygote case, you excused its failing on the grounds of the zygote's "potential" to become human. Where does Descartes address hidden potentials in his principle? As I already explained to you, you have simply recapitulated what many creationists before you have done to cite the evolution of complex life forms as something miraculous and inexplicable by natural processes. You are even using the same dodges to explain why your "laws" don't apply to anything but the case you cite as a miracle. It is important to do this unless you're going to accept a tornado or non-biotic formaldehyde as a miracle. (Again, the cases creationists insist "don't count" don't involve DNA. But where did Descartes say his principle only applies to DNA?)
I am not confused. If anything, you have so far failed to confuse me.