This is exactly what I want.
I have to say that it does not appear to be the case. In fact it seems to be very much not the case. We haven't seen you offer any good reasons to think that your claims are true
I refute the current explanation because I know a better one. In the 1980s in the Far East I learned a different explanation of evolution. A compelling and clever theory that did not rely on meteor strikes or mutations as mechanisms of development. It is based on evidence and rational argument. It made predictions which at the time did not seem possible, yet they have come true and continue to do so. I argue from a position of knowledge. I think there is something better because there is.
If it is "better" in the sense of better explaining the evidence then you need to actually support that claim. You certainly haven't done so in this thread. And despite your claim to argue "from a position of knowledge" you seem to know very little about the relevant biology (to the point of failing to even understand even a simple Mendelian view of genes).
If the question is about "what is" and not what you personally like, then an understanding of biology and an understanding of the evidence is absolutely necessary to argue from a position of knowledge. You can't be in a position to claim that your preferred theory fits better with the evidence without the understanding needed to adequately evaluate how it fits with the evidence.
know the theory I heard 25 years ago may be false, but it clearly demonstrates that an alternative is possible. I have only been on this site a couple of weeks. I did not intend to explain the theory I heard, I came here because I was dismayed that the current theory of arbitrary events is purported to be the only possible scientific explanation. This is arrogant and deeply misleading to people who trust in science. As I do.
Let us be honest, simply hearing a view that you like and which makes sense to you is not sufficient to conclude that that idea is scientifically viable. You should not expect us to believe that your preferred "theory" is scientific just on your say-so.
I would suggest, indeed, that the arrogance is largely yours. Like the vast majority of anti-evolutionists I have observed you seem to start with the belief that your opinions are correct and reality has to agree.
I can say with a great degree of confidence that there is at present no scientifically viable alternative to the current theory of evolution considered broadly. Certainly there is still a lot of refinement to do but at present there is no great evidential challenge, nor any sign of there being one. This is not arrogance, it is an honest assessment of the facts - and if I am not an expert, at least I have a better understanding of the evidence and the support of the overwhelming majority of experts.
You on the other hand, assume that we must accept your opinion that there are scientifically viable alternatives as unquestionably true despite being unable to even offer an example for evaluation or showing an understanding of the relevant science.
In short, you are simply indulging in personal attacks here instead of supporting your claim. And if you cannot support your claim, then you are quite definitely being arrogant.