Great job at trying to convince the sceptics, (like me) but from my perspective, you've come up with another theory to fit in with a theory that you appear to believe is fact. Nothing you have written here proves cross-species evolution occurred but at least you acknowledge that the often cited proof of 'transitional fossils' are not really proof at all.

We could go around in circles all day about this and I'm pretty sure Occam's Razor would be pulled out of the hat at some point, but the fact remains that there is no evidence that proves that everything we see on planet earth today came from a single source. There is evidence that suggests it might be so but until the gaps in knowledge (and the fossil record) are filled we are in a situation where athiests 'believe' that evoltion explains how man got to where he is today but only because they completely rule out the possibility that there might have been a creator or designer.

Even if probability and Occam's Razor are used and the conclusion is reached that evolution is far more probable than the idea of a creator or designer, it does not change the fact that we do not 'know'. I might be misunderstanding what you are trying to say and if so I apologise.

Even your ant analogy doesn't explain anything other than how a species evolves within it's own species. The ant was still an ant whether it could jump, fly or hover, it didn't randomly mutate into something else entirely.

You seem to be making a similar argument that is made which suggests that if a monkey was given a typewriter and an infinite amount of time it would eventually produce the complete works of Shakespeare (or something like that). Logically of course, it is difficult to argue with this because the probablility that something might happen is never zero but that isn't the sort of argument that will convince me that cross species evolution is a fact.

Great work though. I enjoy reading your stuff.