Evolution appears to be the only "scientific theory" which drives the interpretation of evidence...where the evidence doesn't drive the theory. Researchers assume that macro evolution is a fact (based on what?), and then every little bone fragment they find must fit the theory.
Then there's Einstein:
"The human mind has first to construct forms, independently, before we can find them in things."
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
"Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world. In our endeavour to understand reality we are somewhat like a man trying to understand the mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the moving hands, even hears it ticking, but he has no way of opening the case. If he is ingenious he may form some picture of the mechanism which could be responsible for all the things he observes, but he may never be quite sure his picture is the only one which could explain his observations. He will never be able to compare his picture with the real mechanism and he cannot even imagine the possibility of the meaning of such a comparison."
Appearance doesn't mean anyting. You are, of course, wrong. Once evidence is found that provides the framework for a different scientific theory, then that theory will be tendered.
Researchers assume that macro evolution is a fact (based on what?),
It is a theory that is based on the evidence.
and then every little bone fragment they find must fit the theory.
Please provide proof of a fossil or any other datum that pointed to anything other than TToE (do so and you will be rich beyond the dreams of averice).
False. The theory of evolution follows standard scientific methods.
Why do you hate the theory of evolution so much that you spread untruths about it?