))) Ant... please, not Lord L , by no means
Anyway, yes perhaps bad choice of word in my far from first language, but poked around the ice age as example again, i.e. if we took animals vs. our ancestors, latter were in possession of a number of differentiating instruments (not to use the word tool) compared to former. Therefore introduced a number of crucial factors into the equation of what physiological changes they should/would have suffered etc.
Anyway, without any fear (or apnee problems) regarding extinguishing evolution here:
For point (1)-(3) I tried, obviously failed, to actually go at it directly with the other thought experiment (again with Zeus and the annoying lightning). Essentially to make the point that it is commendable to approach the actual question in the quantitative manner you initially posed it... but... it is using a comparison between very different things and could be misunderstood completely.
But apologies, we need to clarify a few things even before that:
(1) - in what specific point / area is the homo sapiens-related baggage, or its parts, merely a hypothesis? There are hypotheses there on some things within that, and there is (even very very recent and quite frankly astonishing) evidence on other things... I may have mentioned, actually definitely did, the common ancestor issue - with the gobsmackingly precise fusion of 23rd and 24th chromosomes, that was beyond the proposers' wildest dreams... and side-stepped the anthropological matters (and other things that use a shovel sometimes
).
(2) - in the evolution theory or the theory we also rant about on the forum, namely creation or divine design etc.
Perhaps this point is the easiest to quantitatively compare - clearly, there is one hypothesis (or as some had put it, a certainty...) vs. a set of different hypotheses from numerous overlapping and non-overlapping sciences, with various degrees of evidence/observation.
(3) - do we count it? can we? I can't. But... this is the point that triggered my Zeus lightning example. Whilst we may end up here with an answer, we need to be careful as in some minds, a non-zero number means the entire thing fails, as several commented before about a particular fallacy.
(4) - are we focusing then only on simple -> intelligent life? or the entire saga, going back to early geophysics that prepared the ground (as reproduced in labs) for the building blocks for life to start with? and follow it through its entire "history"?
If we are only looking at simple -> intelligent, in another thread I dared to make a parallel with two things from the cyber world... well, from artificial intelligence. We need to be careful in how complicated we deem intelligence and consciousness even. We humans re-creating it to some degree from e.g. puny artificial neurons that have one trivial algebraic formula inside them to connect inputs to their output(s) is interesting, and limited of course... It can be hypothesised where the limit is and what limits it, naturally, but any firm statement on that can be proven wrong quite rapidly, as we learned (no pun intended) from some slabs of metal finally passing the Turing test with flying colours.