Actually, it is not a misinterpretation at all. The only problem is that you disagree with it. And you have to do much more than attempt to wave your hand and magically say Ã¢â‚¬Å“This is a gross misrepresentation of the detailsÃ¢â‚¬Â. You need to follow it up with actual evidences of your assertion. And you have yet to do such.
This is a gross misrepresentation of the details.
No, if evolution happened it would leave solid evidences, not interpretative innuendoes. There are absolutely Ã¢â‚¬Å“NOÃ¢â‚¬Â transitional forms or evidences: No fin to limb transitions, no lips to beak transitions, no scale to feather transitions, No spot to eye transitions (etceteraÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ etceteraÃ¢â‚¬Â¦). None have yet been posited for consideration, or empirically adduced. Therefore, all discussion is speculative at best. Further,
If evolution happened it would leave a particular signature.
No, searching for that signature is a philosophical process. Searching for Ã¢â‚¬Å“evidenceÃ¢â‚¬Â is a scientific pursuit via the inductive scientific method.
Searching for that signature is a scientific process.
The empirical scientific method is performed in a controlled environment. Field work is done, then the finding are sent back to the controlled environment for scientific study. The misinterpretation is in positing that anything outside a controlled environment can be verified as empirical.
Not all science is done in a lab (a particularly virulent misrepresentation this one), but some evolutionary work, such as the discovery of a set of positive mutations that together increased the fitness of the organism that had them is done in the lab.
The scientific question is: Ã¢â‚¬Å“If evolution happened, what would we expect to see?Ã¢â‚¬Â
Actual Ã¢â‚¬Å“transitionalÃ¢â‚¬Â evidences.