Are discussions on faith and science two different catagories?

[RealityCheck01]

Evolutionist's can't even agree on the definition of species, let alone what constitutes information. Basically species is now anything anyone wants it to be at any given time. As is information.

25 July 2018 Justatruthseeker: Does not tell the truth about the definitions (plural) of species or information.
Some inanity with "Evolutionist's" when species is a term in biology, not just evolution, that first appeared in a vague form a couple of thousand years ago. The Swedish scientist Carl Linnaeus started the classification of animals into species in the 18th century maybe 100 years before Darwin.

Biologists agree on the definitions (plural) of species.

Basically a "Basically species is now anything anyone wants it to be at any given time" lie. Biologists select the appropriate definition of species for the context. Mostly Mayr's biological species concept unless dealing with single celled organisms.

When looking at information in DNA, it is "Shannon information": Information theory

Information theory studies the quantification, storage, and communication of information. It was originally proposed by Claude E. Shannon in 1948 to find fundamental limits on signal processing and communication operations such as data compression, in a landmark paper entitled "A Mathematical Theory of Communication".

Shannon entropy applied to the genome.

 

[RealityCheck01]

They also have about seven different theories as to how we got our moon.

Not quite right, AV1611VET. Origin of the Moon. There is one main theory (Giant impact hypothesis) which most of the evidence supports. There have been 3 alternative hypotheses, 1 discredited, 2 with problems. A couple of other speculations.

This is nothing to do with the definitions of species that biologists use in different contexts.

 

[RealityCheck01]

In your preconcieved view of how variation occurs it is. but real world studies have found the exact opposite to be true.

25 July 2018 Justatruthseeker: Does not understand what "Genetic frontloading doesn’t work" means!
None of his papers are about genetic frontloading.
None of his papers are about the basic fact that random mutations happen, e.g. about 100 in each human generation, so a collection of preloaded genes will mutate and become useless over time ("multiple generations would just eventually lose these genes to random mutations").

The papers on mainstream evolution are basically about the fact that hybridization creates hybrids . More seriously they look at mechanisms for that hybridization

Relaxed trait covariance in interspecific cichlid hybrids predicts morphological diversity in adaptive radiations

Hybridization is important in evolution, but is speciation?

Extreme Environments Facilitate Hybrid Superiority–The Story of a Successful Daphnia galeata× longispina Hybrid Clone

Body shape differences in a pair of closely related Malawi cichlids and their hybrids: Effects of genetic variation, phenotypic plasticity, and transgressive segregation