That’s because special creation isn’t a scientific hypothesis, but an ad-hoc rationalization. You can’t tell me what we should expect to find in comparative genetics, you can only make up reasons after the fact why a God would choose to create things in ways that look exactly like evolution happened.
Like the biochemical causes of mutation, or the consilience of independent phylogenies.
None of these make any sense on independent creation, but then you can of course just make some stuff up, like “God’s sort of an artist so he can choose to make it look like evolution happened because he just wanted to do it that way”. Or some similar nonsense that would, essentially, make God out to be deliberately mislead scientists. You can of course believe that if you want, but you can’t pretend the data isn’t real. There really is evidence for evolution and the common descent of life, including humans and other primates.
No, it isn’t required to know the chemical details to know that large-scale evolutionary transitions have occurred. The only thing you need to know that is that there is a theory based on data that makes predictions that can be observationally tested against new data. That’s how, for example, scientists are able to predict geochronological time-periods in which to look for specific fossils, such as transitional tetrapods or transitional whales. There’s zero explanation for why such species should even exist on special creation (and no explanation for how it is possible to predict what layers they should exist in using radiometric dating), again other than some vacuous ad-hoc rationalization like “God wanted to make an organism like that and put it in that layer of rock to test our faith, or he’s an artist”.
That’s a bug of “supernatural origin”, not a feature. Since it consists only and entire of ad-hoc rationalizations after the fact, nothing can rule it out in principle. It’s like JustNowIsm.
Actually you really can posit that processes observed in the present also happened in the pre-historical past to explain patterns in data observed in the present. I can explain a meteor crater with a meteor impact without having seen the actual impact occur, simply by observing that other meteors also make craters today.
When it comes to historical evolution, there is an expected pattern. The expectation is based on observations of currently observed processes. Such as the biochemical causes of mutation producing transition bias leading to an expectation that DNA sequence differences between species should show an abundance of transition mutations over transversion mutations. Or the demonstrable reality that the evolutionary process produces consilience in the phylogenies that can be inferred from the sequences of independent genes.
I’m sorry to have to tell you that none of the evidences above I detailed depends on any particular values of the relative magnitude of selection vs neutral evolutionary processes. Whether some attribute evolved due to selection or neutral processes makes no difference, you still expected consilience of independent phylogenies, chronologically specific transitional forms, and transition over transversion bias.
So no, I don’t have to know what goes on in my tomato soup to know it’s tomato soup or to know how to make it. And it’s not relevant to my knowledge of plate tectonics whether the mountains contain more of some mineral than another, or what chemical reactions lead to the formation of such minerals in the first place. That’s irrelevant and not required for a well-supported inference of plate tectonics. It’s preferable, and interesting, but not strictly required for a fact.
Oh wait, people of a recalcitrant fundamentalist mindset can’t accept concrete empirical realities? Well I guess there truly is no consensus on anything then. Yawn.