but such changes do not evidence bird to biologist evolution.

Well, you put that incredibly clumsily, but yes they do.

have said this many times but just to reiterate-there is natural selection.i dont accept that develops one species beyond what is coded in it.do you know of any mutation that has added information?
oops-was that another tautology?!

Of course mutations "add information". I mean, as with everything you say, it was a completely shite way of putting it. Mutations occasionally result in novelties that give natural selection "more information" to work on. Your problem is that you regurgitate this stuff from God knows where else, and it comes out like the usual regurgitated stuff, namely, puke.

no thing comes into being without a sufficient cause and as i said before there is nothing scientific about saying that the absence of anything and everything can somehow arrive at a singularity that explodes...etc etc
you accept that on faith!

There is an abundance of evidence for the Big Bang. Sure, we don't know (yet) what happened in the first ten to the minus 15 of a second after the Big Bang, but that isn't too bad in a span of 13 billion years, and we're closing in. On the other hand there is not one scrap of evidence for your alternative. I mean, it's all right to invent a "sufficient cause" in the way you do, but, you see, we have evidence for our sufficient cause but you not only don't have evidence but you suggest a sufficient cause that breaks all the laws of physics. At least we don't have to resort to that desperate measure. It is scientific to present what evidence we have and to suggest the best possible conclusion from it. Don't worry, when any alternative evidence comes along (and, unlike you, we're looking hard) we might change our minds.

just because the bible is old does not mean it is unreliable.i take that as trustworthy on what i believe is a reasonable faith.
no -i dont expect to convert you but you never know!

But it isn't evidence. It's the sayings of long-dead men, few if any of whom even came within a hundred years of Jesus, and they might have been lying, and it's wide open to interpretation and duff translation. It is of interest but it is not evidence.

and someone less entrenched may consider the arguments.

You are one of the most entrenched, hands-joined, eyes-closed, one-track minded, insulting eejits it's been my displeasure to come across.