Contorting evidence on fossilization to fit some preconceived notion of a biblical flood is what you contorted.
You have no idea what I am talking about? Probably because you don't really understand the subject.
There is only a 2% genetic difference between humans and chimp.
If the “limits” you propose on evolutionary change are constrained somehow to less than a 2% genetic difference, it would be impossible for all species of animals to have evolved from those that could fit on a boat of known dimensions within the last few thousand years.
The evolution you propose would be thousands of times more rapid than ever proposed by an evolutionary biologist, and it would exceed the change of 2% in genetic DNA that would separate humans and chimps for those species.
So if an animal, fresh off the Ark, can change over the next few thousand years to become many different species over the Earth, far exceeding a 2% genetic DNA change; what is to stop a human population from diverging from a chimp population and accumulating a 2% genetic DNA difference over some six million years?
How do you reconcile your belief in massive evolutionary change in a short time, far exceeding a 2% genetic DNA change (while somehow limited to staying within a “kind”), while simultaneously deny that slow incremental evolutionary change over millions of years can derive a 2% genetic difference?
Is that simple enough for you? If not I don't really know how to dumb it down any further to make it understandable to you.
Tell me where she did that.
Contorting evidence on fossilization to fit some preconceived notion of a biblical flood is what you contorted.
Give me the quote where I contorted evidence.
How do you reconcile your belief in massive evolutionary change in a short time, far exceeding a 2% genetic DNA change
As I said, THEY DON'T HAVE THE DNA from those elephant fossils (that I know of) ago to compare current elephants to. You make some assumption about what the DNA difference is. You keep making unwarranted assertions that are based on an assumption of evolution, i.e. circular reasoning.
I should add that your whole argument assumes apes evolved to humans. Another circular element. It’s “since we know apes evolved to humans over millions of years, therefore something that evolved in much shorter time should have less of a DNA difference”. Then you ALSO assume that the elephants have a large DNA difference, even though we don’t have the DNA.