It makes distinctions between what is considered scientific "theory" and scientific "fact" which is different then the commonly used terms of theory and fact. I am not clear on what you are saying at all.
Well, it is probably easier to call it crap then debate it, but I think defaulting to God is just as much crap and certainly not science.
If TNA can be created then it is certainly possible it could have existed naturally. Will it ever be proved beyond a doubt? Who knows. But that doesn't mean it may never be. It's simply another small brick that may support evolution. So far, your entire premise is based on negative evidence, not science.
So any research that might advance our understanding of evolution is simply a waste of money. 
Somehow, for all your vaunted words I do not think you are a scientist at all.
Your mind is made up.
You restrict yourself to evidence that supports your conclusions and discard anything else.
Scientists do not start with a conclusion and then gather evidence to support it. They start with evidence and form a conclusion based on that evidence.
That is incorrect. Sickle cell anemia for example had a survival benefit in it's heterozygous form in countries where malaria is endemic. You need to do your research.
Why don't you counter what TalkOrigins said? Or provide some scientific sources backing your claims?
