Okay, fair enough.
But I take issue with the timescale.
How does one arrive at that billion number for the transformation to take place?
What is the foundation?
Or is it just an estimate?
The same way they tell you how long ago Gondwanaland existed, by using the current knowledge of rates of changes and running it backwards to put it simply.
With a lot of jumping hoops through all the technicalities of peer reviewed papers and books, researches etc, some of it is ongoing right this second.
And this is the key point. Not that the answers we have now are right or wrong.
For all we know the entire evolution brouhaha could be a huge cruel joke, or the timescale we have could be hugely distorted.
But the scientific process and it's self calibration, it's embrace of dissent and new voices, it meritocracy, it's humble honesty of admitting that it does not have all the answers, it's empiricism, is what attract me to it.
That even if science is wrong - or rather with gaps and inaccuracies-today, the general trend is that with time the wrongs will be corrected and it is converging towards a further calibrated worldview just as Einstein further calibrated Newton and Newton further calibrated Galileo.
Unlike religion, which is static, unchanging, dishonest, authoritative, top heavy and incapable of change and adaptation.
Like the changing bacteria, science can evolve to become a better organism that is more suited to face whatever challenges thrown at it.
And religion is like a dead body without capability for further evolution.