Logically, to make evolution a fact, and proven, you have to find the logical equivalent in nature, and PROVE that evolution MUST follow.
This has been done.
There are no examples of mutations producing any new morphology. Natural selection only removes information from a gene pool.
The fact that you are not telling the truth vitiates your argument.
If I have bananas on a plate, bread, beans, chips, burger, I have a diverse meal - yes? A lot of variation. But now if I take bananas and bread I have something quite unique - a banana sandwhich. Something very unique, "new" and different, but essentially, something which was always on my plate.
And if someone adds a kumquat, you have something different.
Until a speciation shows anything other than a reduction of information, it is a safe bet to state that THE ACTUAL FACTS show an APPEARANCE of evolution, but a process which is infact the opposite.
THESE ARE THE "FACTS".
What an interesting lie.
Until it can be logically shown that evolution certainly followed - you only have a weak "picture" made from weak evidences, which usually depend on a belief in other theories with weak evidences. (Such as uniformatarianism backing up cladistics).
You should study evolution some time. It's really quite interesting.
If our very existanece proves evolution then our very exitence proves that existence is because of a giant ant regurgitating matter.
Are you feeling quite well?
™ Version 4.2