I doubt that most evolutionists even understand evolution or the premise of change. No one knows why or how a decision is made for a flower to become red or yellow, or a banana to assume its casing, why one life form becomes a zebra and one a crocodile. No - it is not because of adaptation: this would make all follow one path - the best and safest one. Instead, it only alligns with the provisions of genesis, which first introduced evolution: 'A SEED SHALL FOLLOW ITS OWN KIND'. This says the decision to become a zebra or a flower is dependent on the seed programe, which we have come to identify as genes in the dna. But there is a problem with the latter decision.
Since a gene habours variant data, each offspring being different, it inclines not with ToE but with genesis. Example. A child is said to be the offspring of its parents; but ToE is saying, a child is the offspring of a retro virus data lodged in a bone marror of another life form, but takes turns and twists and then becomes the parent - after millions of years - and never mind how that retro virus even emerged in the first place on its own.
We can prove the offspring being from the parents; we cannot prove the ToE - even when allowing millions of years to evidence this. We know that modern humans are recent and the final life forms. We know that no other life form has emulated humans via adaptation to become of the same brain ratio - despite the advantage of time. An anomoly?
And if this data is vested in a program in the seed - you are talking Genesis' edition of evolution, and a negation of a host of ToE factors. This is proven by ToE not being able to sustain its premises without the seed factor - and it cannot. Contrastingly, the seed factor can evidence its claims of all transmissions of data, including skeletal and dna. Here, both cannot be right.