Well, partner, if simulations don't resonate with you go believe whatever you want. Be free and go enjoy the world. Go outdoors, dig a little bit until you find a fossil and then dig a few more of them.

Then, classify those fossils and keep track of where in the geological record you found them. Then try to come up with a plausible explanation of how those fossils ended up there, keeping in consideration their classification and age.

Maybe you will find a consistent trend and then hear about people that have been doing exactly that for many years now. They all seem to have reached a consensus around how those fossils ended up there. It's about a little word that begins with E. You'll find that story very interesting.

The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is not uniquely determined by the fossil record. The fossil record is at least as consistent with other macroevolutionary theories and with non-macroevolutionary theories too. Look at it this way, the existence of gravitational experimental data doesn’t determine Newtonian gravity to be correct. And biology is a considerably more tricky subject than mechanics.

I think we can all agree that physics is farther along than biology. But I bet you’d have no problem telling me at least one major open problem with General Relativity. Can you bring yourself to tell me even one major open problem with the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection? If not is that a psychological deficiency on your part, or is that theory somehow uniquely flawless?

As for consensus, it’s as irrelevant to reality as computer simulations. Historically speaking the vast majority of human consensuses on anything, including science, have been wrong almost all of the time. The overwhelming arrogance to believe that we’re now fundamentally different is stultifying.