Gee, maybe you should publish -- there might be a Nobel Prize in it. No wait, you claim you've "proven evolution to be false" when arguing with what can only be considered evolution's third string and then you only claim victory only after twisting words, obfuscating facts and flat-out lying. The lurkers on these threads know the score. They've seen you in action and know your posting history.
You know in your heart of hearts that faced with the big boys of evolution -- the biologists who've spent their lives studying the subject -- you'd have your tail-end handed to you on a platter. That is why you'll never publish in a peer-reviewed journal; that's why no creationist will publish in a peer-reviewed journal. You'd be crushed and the scientific community wouldn't even break a sweat. The creationist community really is a bunch of cowards unwilling to put their "theory" to the test because they already know the outcome, even if they won't admit it to themselves. Every biologist, or for that matter any scientist, who puts his pet theory up for peer review has more testicular fortitude in his little finger than you ever will.
Oh my Junior, insulting your friend! You guys must be getting really desperate!
Back to the facts. Do you have a better explanation than your friend 'the third stringer' for different systems "evolving" at the same time by random mutation? Perhaps you could find an answer from a 'first stringer' in your list-o-links.