You miss the point.
By insisting on constancy and certainty you close your mind to new information. The fact there might be conflict between information raised by different fossils does not preclude an irreconcilable difference of the available information. The facts of the fossils are different. The theories can and should be also uncertain, ie not identical. There is far more unknown than there is known.
By harping on the concept of theory not having absolute validity and clinging to myth drawn from thin air as certainty, there is a lot of vacant intellectual ground.
I agree with you completely. However, these “scientists” clinging to their “myth drawn from thin air” insist on leaving a log of vacant intellectual ground.
At what point does their “theory” get discarded? In other words, is it falsifiable? They are dancing as hard as they can trying to come up with new scenarios to try to avoid the fact that their ideas aren’t working out too well.