That scenario has been used, this was my reply:
Ah, but you see, such a conclusion is not based on a species or entity outside humanity or time, is it?
Darwin writes because he is only a man who lived the normal length of a human, the evidence brought up of the past is limited, so therefore, the evidence needed to prove his theory is out of our range and can't prove evolution at reach.
You see, murder is a good metaphor but not good enough. Solving a murder case involves a murderer, at least, does it not? Without a murder suspect, do we randomly start accusing people of murder? Without a valid record of the past, do we start randomly bringing up facts and associating them with evolution? Hmm...
Since we have no proper evidence to put on the murder suspect we have no one to accuse and with no one to accuse we have no case.
Darwin brought a murder suspect without proper evidence. Evidence is being used today to prove the suspect guilty but is it proving the suspect guilty or a pack of anxious anti-creationists with the need to settle justice of any kind under any circumstance on anyone?
Without looking at evidence we can't even tell if a murder took place at all. Find a body and try to figure out was it murdered? Look at it. Is there a bullet hole in the back? A knife in the front? Is there, to be short, any evidence that the person didn't die of natural causes?
Because, if there isn't, we won't look for a murderer. If there is, then we have to start gathering evidence to work out who the murderer was. And we don't randomly accuse people, unless we're really bad at this, we look for a suspect that the evidence tells us is guilty. It's a type of puzzle. Did this person die as a result of someone else's actions? If they did, then what happened?
The current diversity of life is a puzzle. Where did it all come from? So people, interested in the truth, went looking for evidence to explain that puzzle. Many of them were Christians, and many of those had a suspicion that the answer to that puzzle was found in Genesis, but when they gathered the evidence, they found Genesis wasn't supported by the evidence.
Evolution is supported by all available evidence.
And Darwin, as the initial prosecutor, started off with a killer case. But he hasn't been the only one. A lot of other people have joined in looking for a suspect and have gathered a lot more evidence than Darwin could have dreamed of. And even though Darwins case turned out to be pretty solid, solid enough to still be convincing, the new evidence is even more impressive. It's so good that we can even make guesses about what evidence we'll find in future, and so far even that is working. Darwin did the same, by the way, making a guess that there would be found a creatre with particular features. It was a type of moth, as I recall, and it was found after Darwin made his prediction.
If another explanation actually worked better, we'd have a new suspect. And if someone actually came up with a better explanation they'd be a certainty for a Nobel, the cash prize and assorted magazine covers. They'd also go down in history. So, with fame, fortune and not to mention the clearing evolution of it's 150+ years of being the only viable suspect, I've got to wonder why no one has managed to come up with something that better explains the evidence.
We have a "crime" in the diversity of life, and we have a "suspect" in evolution. Evolution is guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt.
And, by the way, the origin of life isn't part of evolution. That's a seperate field, known as Abiogenesis. Evolution doesn't care where the life came from.
Mumbo jumbo?
