I doubt it.
And that is precisely that attitude that keeps me on the fence. The creationist side has their own issues. But the evolutionist side has this attitude of: well, you just haven't read the right books or you would understand everything and accept evolution as fact. Or you didn't understand what you read.
I wonder what's keeping you from reading the literature which will explain evolution properly?
Yet more of that attitude. I hope you realize the insults to the creationists and this tone and attitude you hand out does nothing for your cause.
Have you read anything recent by Ernst Mayr or Stephen J. Gould?
Yes I have, damnit. Just because I don't accept evolution as fact on blind faith doesn't mean I'm not well read on the subject.
I just went downstairs to my library and wrote down some books I have on the subject. The following is a partial listing of books I own and have read on the issue:
Brief History of Time - Hawkings
Blind Watchmaker - Dawkins
Analysis of Vertebrate Structure - Hildebrand
Science and Earth History - Strahler
Bully for Brontosaurus - Gould
Wonderful Life - Gould
Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes - Gould
Time Frames - Eldredge
Evolutionary Biology - Futuyma
There's a lot less from the "other side", but here's what I own and have read:
Evolution: A theory in Crisis - Denton
Darwin's Black Box - Behe
Reason in the Balance - Johnson
Darwin on Trial - Johnson
Don't ever ask me again "what's keeping [me] from reading the literature which will explain evolution properly." I've read more than most, so cut the tude.
Recapitulation is out in the way that Heackel formulated it. But developmental ontogeny is a trajectory through a phenotypic space and the patterns which emerge within that space are broadly reminiscent of ancestral forms. However, the wide variety seen between organisms and their development allows precise comparisons only between closely related species and then only during certain points of development. The conflicting messages come from viewing various aspects of development.