Don't you think it's a bit on the arrogant side to come on with this part of your statement -- "Your “medical professional” -.... is nothing better than an ILL educated layman." before you have an answer to this part: "...(i.e. a nurse) who is a “degreed geneticist” (what pray tell is her degree? And what is her degree in?)
I'm not sure that doesn't go a long way toward disqualifying you to talk about who does or does not have the right to set forth opinions on proof or non-proof about any subject.
Doesn't strike me as you stuck very close to "science" this time.
I was wondering why she was so vague about her actual qualifications. There is nothing to be ashamed about being a nurse. I like nurses. It is just that being a nurse is not a qualification, in and of itself, to make pronouncements on Evolution.
She revealed herself to be a rather ill educated laymen when she said that most mutations are deleterious and most of the rest are neutral. Over 90% of mutations in humans are neutral to selective pressure. Less than 5% of our DNA is genes or the regulatory sequences of genes, and less than 5% of non genetic DNA shows evolutionary conservation. Her essay is full of errors right from the beginning showing a complete ignorance of Molecular Evolution; and we are supposed to take her “Hewitt Conjecture” seriously when she so obviously hasn’t done her homework?
Is it not appropriate to point out that your “medical professional” who is a “degreed geneticist” is a nurse with a Masters Degree? Why is she ashamed of it? I am quite proud of my M.S.; a lot of work went into it.
Is it also not appropriate to point out that she betrays just how little she actually knows about the subject in each and every paragraph?