Nope, not what I said. What I said was....."Yes, the point was that lack of the identity of an alleged single common ancestor calls into question the other many guesses and suppositions of the Darwinist creationist model. It could be this and it could be that and it could be something else is hardly evidence for one's creationist view."
I can read. My question was to gain clarity because I wanted to completely understand your meaning. Repeating a sentence that I already don't understand does nothing to add clarity.
If the "other many guesses and suppositions" are "called into question" by "lack of identity of an alleged single common ancestor", doesn't that call into question the entire conclusion that humanity evolved from a common ancestor? What do you mean by "call into question"? Is that the same as invalidating it, or just lowering its likelihood some percentage points?
That's the thing, you don't have evidence which points to humanity being the creation of only, totally, completely, solely naturalistic processes. The guesses and suppositions may or may not be true in that particular creationist viewpoint.
There is evidence that naturalistic processes were involved in evolution at some points. There is evidence that humans evolved from an common ancestor with chimpanzee's. Since there is evidence that humans evolved and that naturalistic processes were involved, that evidence can be used to point to humanity being the creation of only totally completely solely naturalistic processes. The evidence scientists have uncovered
does not guarantee that the process was only, totally, completely, solely naturalistic, but
it still points to it. What the evidence does not point to is God creating humanity as a life form which never previously existed (assuming that means humans did not evolve from other animals).
There's as much evidence for a supernatural involvement in the creation of humanity as it is for an atheistic viewpoint of the creation of humanity.
I agree if you mean that the supernatural involvement consisted of humanity evolving from a common ancestor with chimpanzee's. The evidence for God forming the first humans separately from the rest of life, with no ancestors, has almost no evidence, none of which is scientific evidence.
It's a faith-based view, as is Darwinist creationism which teaches that humanity is the result of a random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless (other than procreation) and directionless process.
Except that the evolution of humanity from a common ancestor has
some scientific evidence pointing to it, whereas the "formed from the dust of the ground" hypothesis has none.