[ifinnegan]

While we are at it, let's examine your attempt at an intellectually dishonest sleight of hand.

I wrote:Nothing can break an evolutionary rule.

You in turn wrote: Well it could if evolution were wrong. Nothing violates the theory of heliocentrism either

Writing nothing violates the theory of heliocentrism is very different than saying nothing can violate the theory of heliocentrism, which is the equivalent of what I wrote.

Many things can violate the theory of heliocentrism, but don't because it's physical reality.

But my comment was nothing can violate the "rules of evolution".

Big difference.

[Alter Kaker]

Semantics. In any event, there are plenty of things that could violate our understanding of evolution. For example, we assume common descent. Although it wouldn’t be fatal, it would be pretty easy to find evidence of an organism not exhibiting evidence of common descent and that would require an overhaul at a minimum of our understanding of evolution. When you find me a silicon-based life form that uses a mechanism other than DNA to store genetic information, you’ll have my attention. The fact is, you have zero evidence to support your argument, which is why it has no support from the scientific community and hasn’t for over a century.