It is only rubbery around the edges. I know a blond from a brunette from a redhead, but the division between dishwater blond and auburn at some point is hard to distinguish. That does not mean haircolor is not a useful categorization 95% of the time.
To throw out categories is to throw out science and to throw out human knowledge altogether.. You can do it if you like but it leaves you nothing important to talk about.
I may not know if a Ding Dong is a cup cake or a brownie, but in general I know what a cup cake is and I know what a brownie is, even if you find such categories "rubbery."
... to you - let it be emphasized. But that is not my point. I am not here to defend evolution, or the findings of molecular biology. I am here to show the complete and utter violation of the rules of logic and empiricism that are being followed by the critics of the theory of evolution.
The theory of evolution and the theories of genetics can be all wrong for all I care in this argument. I am not defending them. I am merely pointing out that the arguments mounted here against them do not pass muster.
In order to refute a hypothesis you need sound scientific data that all can review and argue about and some can reproduce. And your refutation cannot assume that what you are trying to refute is true, i.e. you cannot attack the theory of evolution on the basis that the rate of genetic mutation is wrong, unless you can demonstrate that the rate of mutation is effectively zero, and that is one thing that no one here as argued.
You cannot refute the Copernican hypothesis of a solar centric planetary system by arguing that, well, some of the predictions of comet orbits were wrong and their orbits around the sun are really different that what others had predicted. All the argument does is reaffirm what you set out to disprove, namely, that objects in the solar system are "in orbit around the sun," which, to be physically accurate, is a shorthand way of saying that they orbit around the center of mass of the solar system which is effectively located at the sun. Even finding retrograde comets affirms the original hypothesis.
That a hypothesis is refined and corrected as the result of more data and better thought is not a disproof of the scientific method, or demonstration that scientists are liars, but rather the opposite, that they are seeking the right answer as best they can.