And again, you have evaded the issue that genomes have been mapped. This is settled science. You've got tons of irrefutable truth staring you in the face and you're desperately grabbing onto semantic straws, I presume to rationalize the possibility that humans are not apes. "They" are telling us everything we need to…

You have misunderstood recessive genes. You can have 2 organisms who do not express a recessive trait mate and the recessive trait will appear in the offspring. It happens all the time with blue eyes and red hair.

Yeah, you're doing exactly what I was talking about. You refuse to grasp the scope. Of course no breeder has seen a line go from toy poodle to wolf in their lifetime. No breeder has overseen more than 30 generations of dogs. You need thousands of generations to see that kind of differentiation and you have to select…

Who says you can't go from dog to wolf? Sure you can. You can select for any traits you like. And if you have enough time, you can make a wolf out of any animal you want. That's something I've found creationists consistently won't accept. One kid pointed at a building and said to me, "Would you say that building…

You keep changing the terms of the discussion. To close out and circle back to your misuse of terminology at the outset, you still haven't made the case for artificial selection reducing genetic information. You talk about traits which I presume you view as being more noble or interesting, but in terms of observable…

Hold on. Which is it? Can artificial selection add "genetic information" as you say, or can it not? You can breed a Saint Bernard with a chihuahua. They're both dogs. You can breed a wolf with a dachshund. Somebody's gotta get something new in those genetic transactions.

So you're saying that genetic information can't be added to an organism, except for when you add genetic information by cross breeding with another organism?

The fact that a wolf is more fearsome than a poodle does not show that it is genetically more complex.

There was so much wrong in that statement that I don't know where to begin. For instance, antibiotics don't all work the same way. So the mechanism of antibiotic resistance is not uniform. Some antibiotics kill bacteria. Some inhibit their ability to reproduce. Some resistance mechanisms work by developing a harder…

There are plenty of books on the subject matter. You should sit down with your pastor and read them.

None of what you just said is true.

What is your basis for saying mutations are almost always the result of a loss of genetic information? How are you defining this "loss"? Please provide examples.

The domestication of animals began about 10,000 years ago. The creation of a species takes millions. Given enough time you can evolve a Nobel Prize winner from a booger.

I once had an evangelist kid ask me, "How come we don't see evolution today?"

Ha. Yes!

Anyone who has ever visited a dog breeder or a cattle farm should understand that evolution is just nature doing by accident what animal husbandry does on purpose. The fact that even hicks try to say it's not real is willfully stupid.

Antibiotic resistance of bacteria is an observable example of evolution that will have a profound effect on all our lives over the next generation. It's worth discussing.

This lawsuit is taking the Streisand effect to another level.

I am amazed that after all this time, SNL hasn't managed to fix whatever it is that they do that makes bands sound awful. It has been decades. And it's not like it's impossible. I haven't watched Letterman in a while, but bands usually sound good on that set.

NBC could just poach his engineer, make whatever…

The only act I can think of that sounded "good" on Saturday Night Live was Nirvana. And I think Nirvana is among the top 3 most overrated bands in history. No one sounds good on SNL.