1) Correct me if I'm wrong - and I'd like to see actual quotes from current textbooks to support any such claim - but isn't it the case that they state that the Miller-Urey experiment produced amino acids, which is absolutely true ? And it is also the case that atmospheres which are more plausible given what we know now still produce amino acids.
2) and 3) contain outright falsehoods. And your dismissal of arachaeoptryx as an example of an intermediate is simply wrong. Any intermediate between dinosaurs and birds will be classified as a dinosaur or a bird. Thats how the system works. Archaeoptryx happens to be - just - on the "bird" side of the divide - and so close that it was argued over for years.
4) Everything you list is an example of natural selection and therefore belongs in the evolution section. If you want to claim that they are used as evidence for macroevolution in an inappropriate way then you will have to produce evidence that this is the case. On past experience I would say that you are the one jumping to a conclusion.
Quite frankly what you seem to be arguing is for the removal of genuine evidence for evolution, which hardly represents an improvement to textbooks.