My ideas may appear nebulous, because they are more consistent with a hard science approach to the facts. The modern theory of evolution is closer to the study of natural history, than it is to hard science. In terms of a comparison, the study of history also makes use of a wide range of scientific disciplines. For example, ancient history requires scientific disciplines from chemistry to geology. It also uses the physics of carbon dating. They will make use of satellites. In spite of all this science support, to gather data, history is not considered a hard science. Lab coats alone do not make it science. Evolution works the same way in that it is the history of life, supported by a wide range of science disciples who gather data. Hard science theory requires proof of concept using reproducible experiments, in real time. If we claim X evolved to Y, hard science cannot just accept the correlation because fossils show this. It will also require that this theory be demonstrated in several labs. History, is different in that is only has to state the facts that are supported by solid science. It is not about reproducing the data to test the strength of any theory. History is considered a social science, which is soft science. Lab coats may be involved in all data collection, but after the theories are formed, as to why, there is no predictive verification requirement. What I am attempting to do, is turn the social science of evolution, into real science. This is where a line of logic can be used to infer changes subject to verification through experiment.Water makes this possible since it reduces the complexity of the organics into a common link through surfaces. The science of evolution is an oxymoron if the scientific method is applied; has to run experiments to show man came from apes and not just depend on the data itself. History does no have this requirement.