@Quehoniaomath,
With your "statistics skreeslope You've merely re-stated the Fred Hoyle position and also fail to recognize several important points of the occurences of biological sequences(phyla and sub -phyla)
1The Fred Hoyle "Statistical impossibility" of evolution is predicated upon a sequential occurence of the sequences rather than simultaneous ones.
2Statistical estimates that ignore the non-random elements predetermined within chemistry and physics are meaningless and downright silly. Fred Hoyle, you must recall, was a "fan" of panspermia as the story of how life appeared (Hizzown arguments declare that life's start is merely "pushed back" to some other galaxy nd time
3in summarizing, mutations occur randomly and simultaneously among ALL the species, whereas Natural selection is a non-random response. We can "statistically" measure adaptational nat selection in todays species. We have compelling evidence of the natural selection of species within our own history of sentience. To deny what e can see with our own eyes is merely DENIAL based upon some religious belief, not some "appreciation for the truth".
If you deny something you should first understand it and try to find the workings and mistakes.
The Lunar Society has some place of reverence in your mind. It was no more a serious entity than was the Hasty Pudding Society or the Ignoble Prize Committee. So I cant comment on a "mens social club" being some cabal of satanic thought. (I think youre just looney with this obsession)
Youd gotten a bit broken -up toward the end of your post but I must reiterate that REAL SCIENCE has made no "devils compact" with natural selection. It is nothing more than a reasonable solution for the appearance and development of life on our planet. SO MANY interlocking and unrelated aspects of evidence have appeared over the last 150 years that the thory of evolution is daily reinforced.
REMEMBER
The thory of evolution by natural selection is an explanation of lifes occurrence in which ALL of the evidence fits the theory and NO EVIDENCE REFUTES IT. A scientist like Mike Behe would just LOVE to be the guy who finds evidence for theistic evolution, its just that none of his work has yielded anything usable to him.
Your need to try to draft "Statistics" in support of your denial of the theory is totally incorrect since life- statistics is based upon a series of step- functions that always begins with AN UNKNOWN SAMPLE SIZE interacting with a number of UNKNOWN SIMULTANEOUS occurences through time . Maybe that's why it first took almost 4 Billion years to develop and produce a fully adaptable "working model" of a multicellular organism from which all respiring and transpiring plants and animals arose, and then only 550 million years in which ALL sub- phyla of plants and animals appear.