Well if you know something about "Speciation, and the origin of novel species" of cichlids, just say so. No need to mock the rest of us who don't.
On the contrary, I respect people enough that I can use persuasive words to convey the futile acts of theorists who cannot even grapple with their own theory, yet expect the whole world to believe them at their word.
I can inform you that I have learnt and gained alot of insight into evolution theory from the posters on this thread, which has allowed me to scrutinise it by rationale and logical standards expected in the harmonising of Science, Mathematics and English.
I go back to my original supporting point, that the Fibonacci Pattern is inherent within all lifeforms, which is highly suggestive of a single intelligent designer.
If we had intermediate lifeform states from sea to land based and vice versa, we would expect to observe and measure a different sequence of patterns, which are non recursive in emperical mathematical modeling. However since we can only model fully formed lifeforms, we can observe the many speciated paths are indicative of the same pattern for every independent speciated path. This argument would on its own merit disprove the succession theory of the Evolution Theory, because all mammals could not have the same ancestral parent (singular), yet the same Fibonacci pattern exists which highly suggests a single intelligent designer who engineered those fully formed lifeforms simultaneously and in tandem, after their own kind/species, therefore there are no successions based on ancestral parents from other species, linking them to the fully formed species of observable ones, throughout history.
The evolution theory collapses. With more scientific data emerging, the theory becomes untenable as an empirically viable and scientific solution to the origins of life and therefore must be rejected as nothing more than psuedo science at best, just like alchemy was in its days.