" Appealing to my intellectual vanity will get you nowhere! "
Well, it works for some people ;-)
Now seriously, you're not what I would call an evolutionist, not a hard one anyway. I don't think our views are as different as you think they are.
" Okay, you give me a way to justify evolutionary theory if we find evidence that humans have been around since the inception of life. You give me a 'revision.' (Assuming of course that 'revision' does not mean completely overhauling a theory) You provide an answer that better accomodates the data. "
You're asking the wrong person. As far as I'm concerned we have already plenty of evidence that evolution theory is not supported by evidence, but manages to get away with it using clever arguments which are essentially meaningless. But I don't suppose I can make myself clear that easily.
" Why? Who says we have to be genetically perfect to survive? As long as the population in general is passing on their genes, it doesn't matter if a few mutations/lifestyle choices affect others, in the long run. "
Indeed. The only thing that is required to survive is, well, to survive. So what the theory really says is that organisms that don't survive, don't survive, and organisms that do, do.
" You think I'm trying to sell you the answers to life, the universe, and everything, but I'm not. "
I know you're not, but there's a bunch of arrogant scientists out there doing just that. Richard Dawkins, for instance.
" I'm just supporting the best idea SO FAR. And you have yet to propose an alternative idea. "
Wait! I do have my own theories, and they include consciousness as an essential part of the explanation rather than as a superfluous by-product, which is what evolutionists claim. But I'm not selling my ideas, it took me years to develop them and I can't reasonably expect people to understand unfamiliar concepts in a few lines of text. Just look what happened to Dick Stafford.
All I'm saying is, there are better explanations, and it's only the irrational, dogmatic attitude from our leading scientists which prevents those ideas from being explored.
" What you seem to be doing is just throwing up your hands and saying "well, this is all to complex, I give up. And to those of you 'scientists' who try to explain how it all works, don't waste your time." While it is technically true that we'll never have it all figured out, that doesn't mean that science is worthless. It just means it's not ideal. "
I don't agree with that at all. I think there are answers and they can be found, but mainstream science is too concerned with the implications of some ideas than with their explanatory power.
As an example, take a look at Rupert Sheldrake's ideas and give me a good reason why his ideas should not be taken seriously. Here is an intelligent scientist (the two words are not synonimous by the way) with original ideas which have the potential to answer difficult questions, who is not taken seriously simply because he's trying to make nature appear less ugly.
" I think you're doing more sophistry than actual debate. "
I don't recall ever seeing an intellectual debate on this subject, not here nor anywhere else. Evolutionists are too concerned with defeating creationism to pay attention to anything else. I find that silly as creationism is already a dead horse. Why waste time with it? Why not advance the debate to the "deeper issues" which are in fact what everyone wants to know.
Why do organisms adapt to the environment rather than simply perish? If an organism is just a bunch of minerals what really distinguishes a bird from a rock? Why did consciousness evolve and how does it affect physiology? Why is it that our species has more regard for behaviours that do not promote survival or reproduction, such as art, science, philosophy?
You may call those questions sophistry; I think dismissing them is just a clever way to solve a problem by pretending it doesn't exist.
But hey, I could be wrong.