It is an unobservable and unrepeatable theory that is more philosophy than biology.
I simply question the method and then get attacked by people who claim to be open but still have a worldview that requires adherence to a certain humanist orthodoxy."
Bryanw92 post #52: "Where is a lizard-bird or a ape-man?
Because there are no transition fossils to observe.
You cal it an observed fact to point to a scapula or something to prove common ancestry, but it can also just be form following function.
Basic evolution is just natural selection of mutations within a species..."
I think your post #52 puts the lie to your claims in post #41.
In #41 you pose as almost agnostic, simply "question the method", etc., but in #52 you reveal your true self as a committed anti-evolution ideologue, nothing agnostic or reasonable about it.
Specifically, repeated claims of "no transition fossils" from anti-evolutionists are only possible to maintain by denying obvious evidence from billions of collected fossils in hundreds of thousands of extinct species in many well represented transitional sequences.
Faced with literal mountains of evidence you tightly close your eyes, loudly proclaiming: I see nothing!
Bryanw92: "But, a finch is still a finch, regardless of beak size.
A finch with a large beak is not an alligator, or vice-versa."
Sure, by definition, all finches are finches, until they're not.
All told there are hundreds of species of finch in 50 different genera, representing maybe 15 million years of speciation.
But there are also dozens of other species which have recently been reclassified as "not-finch" (including Darwin's finches!) because of more careful morphological and DNA analyses.
So, yes, "a finch is a finch is a finch" except when it's not really and that is determined by scientific analysis rooted in evolution theory.