That last point's the big problem. You have ignored a huge amount of what I have said. This is most obvious in you continuing to claim that evolution requires an increase in information, despite the fact that I have told you that's wrong so many times I literally lost count. Not to mention everything I've said on "missing links" and transitional forms (hint: everything is a transitional form), my discussion of the "dawn horse" (or Hyracotherium) that you brought up, and a massive portion of my second post, which you admitted to not reading much, instead deciding to create a Chrysler Building-sized strawman of my views and arguments. And when you didn't ignore what I said altogether, you gave "alternative explanations" to what I said, acting as if these alternative interpretations made up on the fly without any sort of scientific support were an equal explanation to a well-established, well-supported scientific theory, for no other reason than it may be theoretically possible.
Anyway, with all that said, all that criticism and conflict out on the floor and in the open, I still have to admit, in your own way, you did bring something to the debate. I had to search hard to answer your original questions, and often I had to consult books and websites to come up with answers. In other words, I had to think for this debate, something that doesn't usually happen with a guy like me who's surrounded by fundie creationists (frickin' Alberta). Even if you didn't learn anything from this debate, I did, and I hope others did too.
Later.
