>>I reject evolution as science because, of all the brilliant people who I have had the privilege to debate, none have been able to provide a list of axioms agreed upon for this theory, let alone a logical proof that connects the assertions to these axioms. With the millions of hours devoted to this theory I find it inexcusable that none of the "experts" have taken the time to lay the foundation.<<
You said that very well!
Evolution is a phenomena that the fossil record tends to show. Natural selection, mutation, speciation et. al., are all theories of how that phenomena happens.
The secret sauce of TOE arguments are:
The definition of a species is different for the fossil record and current animals. It is a big jump.
The species of animals developed by the fossil record may also have merges instead of just branches. Mergers would be extremely hard to explain at this point in time, after so much effort has been devoted to extinction as a mechanism for NS.
The big points are:
We have current examples of fertile species crossing. Wolphin (a dolphin, pseudoorca FERTILE cross, a daughter 3/4 dolphin 1/4 pseudoorca), some grass species that interbred and other species crosses that probably should be looked at again.
Evolutionists are not looking in a see no evil fashion.
That's the problem, and you hit it in a nutshell.
DK
So you are saying Homo Erectus and other hominid fossils represent hybrids between Apes and Humans? Well that's one step in the right direction of realising they are not distinct kinds I guess