When somebody says, well to answer that question you need to know about this process, that process and the other he's all up in their face about being evasive, or having "admitted" to not knowing something that is impossible to know.

Because unlike you, I understand why they are being evasive. Do you think I don't know that they don't have the information required to answer the question? What they are trying to do is avoid the obvious follow-on questions... because eventually, the lack of quantification makes it obvious that THEY HAVE NO PREDICTIVE MODELS. The theory is not only not scientific, it is entirely useless.

That's the dirty little secret of evolutionary science. It is pseudo-scientific onanism. You can be an excellent genetic scientist and believe that DNA was coded by aliens from Alpha Centauri. Think about it; on the basis of the timescales alone, evolution by natural selection is not only bound to be unscientific in the testable hypothesis test, but is quite manifestly useless in almost any scientific capacity.

That's why after 200 years, most evolution-related papers are still largely concerned with trying to prove that evolution is real. That is not the mark of a strong or useful hypothesis.

Could I be wrong? Sure. I'm a skeptic, not an absolute denier. But note that my predictions of increasing genetic complexity and less and less credible "epicycles" required to explain away that complexity are being born out.