Err, no - you don't get to shift the burden of proof like that. You have the task of showing that your implicit assertion - that your summary was somehow accurate - is in fact true. Support is your job here, not mine.
Why did you suspect that I invented this notion of things jumping from trees eventually growing wings and flying away?
Why do I say you "invented" it? Because your "summary" bears precious little resemblance to the thing you are ostensibly summarizing. But why stop there? Let's just imagine another inventive scenario, so long as we're holding a creative writing workshop:
"Once upon a time a population of fish that were mammalian ancestors threw themselves onto the land enough times, killing themselves, that they eventually grew legs, the mammalian lung, the mammalian heart, etc.etc..... and walked away."
But of course, that's absurd. Nobody argues such a thing, although it's easy to see why you choose to attack this sort of strawman.
Creatures don't "evolve" by doing things that result in death until they suddenly and magically "evolve" the thing they need in order to survive their previous death sentence. You don't evolve lungs by jumping on to land any more than you evolve wings by jumping out of trees. And nobody - except you, apparently - thinks otherwise. It is an inane scenario you present - you're right about that much. Fortunately, the theory of evolution is in no danger from your "refutation" of it, since no serious student of the theory claims that it works in the manner you present.
Congratulations. Instead of attacking the theory of evolution, you've successfully torched my buddy here:
I hesitate to guess what your next trick will be.
There is a universal sense that all is not as it should be. This statement is self evident and evident in the self.
Which is shorthand for "I'm not going to bother supporting my assertions," apparently.
Also anyone with any common sense also believes in the basic categorical discriminations of civilization and ought to be concerned with the impact of "descriptive" mythological narratives that go against civilization.
"Anyone with common sense agrees with me" is merely a cheap rhetorical trick, devoid of any substance at all. You will, of course, pardon me if I suggest that a pattern is emerging here.
Especially when such narratives are made up to suit a conclusion that's already been decided on a priori.
Specific cases of same being left entirely up to the reader's imagination, I guess. You clearly have the gift of speaking at length without really saying anything of substance - I predict that a long and fruitful career in politics is yours for the taking, if you wish it.