You're correct, I didn't read close enough, but now that I have, I'm kind of LOL. If I could do that, I wouldn't be posting on FR, now would I? I'd be accepting the Nobel Prize. And raking in bazillions of dollars in speaking engagements. And having my picture taken for the covers of Life, Time, Newsweek, and, what the hell, the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue.
I obviously cannot satisfy your request. Are there folks who take their beliefs so far to become unethical in their distribution. Absolutely. Both sides equally guilty. Again, I choose not to paint the large majority with the miniscule percentages who do behave unethically.
Do you not agree with them?
How do you scientifically explain the alleged fish to land mammal transition/evolution but be it, in part, for HOX gene mutations (fins to arms and legs with digits)?
Dr. Schwabe's, the Medical University of South Carolina, Dept. of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, six year study on the issue indicates that there is no evidence to support this HOX gene mutation hypothesis. Why is it widely repeated...even in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary?
Natural History museums and scientific publications (even talk.origins) state that Sinosauropteryx was a feathered dinosaur and yet the scientific evidence says that there was no feathers (Oct 10, 2005, Journal of Morphology, which states: "This isn't science...This is comic relief").
And are you saying that the TOE can't be explained/demonstrated, by anyone today (single cell to observeable life today) without making any assumed conclusions?