It was Sanford, in the link you provided us, who set his position as against the "Primary Axiom" that evolution is nothing but natural selection plus random mutation. No such "axiom" (primary or otherwise) actually exists. It never has. What's to refute?
What if I claimed the "Primary Axiom" of Christianity was that Jesus died on a cross. True enough, so far as it goes. Jesus did die on a cross, and the cross is the most universally employed and recognized symbol of Christianity. But what if I used my "Primary Axiom" to ignore that the resurrection, the Kingdom of God, substitutionary atonement, etc, where also part of Christianity? How would you "refute" that, other than by pointing out that my "Primary Axiom" theory was simply silly, and kinda stupid?
Right, we could shorten 'evolution is nothing but random mutation and NS' to 'evolution is nothing' and still be correct.
There is nothing to refute wrt 'evolution'.