My belief or disbelief does not change the laws of physics. At the basement level of a worldview structure there must be an axiomatic assumption or two for everything to make sense. One such foundational belief is simple faith in the uniformity of nature, at least within our local causal domain.Science only functions when you make the inane assumption that there is some kind of ultimate truth that exists regardless of if you know it or not.
Without that, nothing makes sense. We can simply have magic. In such a world, not a single point you're trying to make here matters at all, because everything cockamamie idea is equally valid. Perhaps it's Satan who dictated the writings of the bible to trick people into dismissing the majestic works of god - namely that god crafted the way evolution would unfold some billion years ago. He pre-planned all the branching paths, extinctions, and the eventual evolution of homo sapiens. No point you make against it matters, because I can make it true if I believe it strongly enough. Right?
And even with our limited senses, we understand the mechanisms of the universe well enough to land men on the moon and store entire libraries of information on a piece of plastic the size of a thumbnail. The proof is in the pudding that, at the very least, we aren't as wrong as you're suggesting. And many fields of science snap together into the vast web of knowledge in such a way that it's all mutually reinforcing.For those of you that like to harp about science take into consideration that using our limited senses we are only experiencing less than 1% of what actually exists. Science is then taking this minute observation we call reality and attempting to explain how everything works.
Regarding the idea that we experience less than 1% of what actually exists... how did you manage to quantify the other 99%, if you've never experienced it? It's obviously a shallow assumption, and you really have no clue. If there is uniformity to nature, and our experience of the universe around us is fungible, then we might possibly have experience nearly half of what actually exists. I'm not saying we have, but at the same time, you can't say we haven't. You can only appeal to emotion.
What alternative do you suggest in discovering how our world works? Science is literally the only system we have that limits the sort of bias you suggest has corrupted it. It doesn't eliminate it, because humanity will always find a way to make shit up. But it limits it better than any other system. Apples to apples, knowledge gained from science is more trustworthy than from any other source. Believe it or not, the entire intent of the scientific process is to minimize the impact of human bias and stupidity. Double blind procedures, placebo controls, variable controls, peer reviews, etc. The structure is all about removing as much human error as possible from how we discover the workings of the universe. It ain't perfect, but no other system even comes close.Tell me this, which evolved first, the heart, the veins, or the blood? Seems like the cardiovascular system wouldn't work unless all the components of the system were functioning. What good is a heart that randomly accidentally evolves when there is no blood for it to pump? Your talking about many vast systems that are extremely complex that could not possibly have happened by random chance. I like the old creationist quote that believing these things happened at random is akin to believing that a tornado moving through a junk yard could assemble a 747 airliner. Science has gotten you to believe so many bizarre things that getting scientists to admit their wrong is out of the question scientists would rather make up more nonsense to support their claims than to admit they have been lying to people for decades and losing all their precious funding.
And what's going to stop DNA from changing between generations, from radiation or chemical exposure or faulty replication? DNA changes. Given enough time, it changes a great deal. Not within a single organism, but between generations. Most changes are simply variations within species. But if there is a stranded population with differing selective pressures from the original population pool, those variations stick and amplify, until the population pool has changed enough from the original that we're no longer simply talking about variation within species. If there's an animal perfectly fit to survive, the only selective pressure would be to not change.Your DNA does not have the DNA of any other animals so you won't be evolving into another animal, ever, because there is no evolution.
I know you really truly believe evolution is some fabricated nonsense from scientists who want to keep their funding. But you're utterly wrong. There is a mountain of evidence more vast than you could ever absorb, from nearly every scientific discipline, all converging on the truth of evolution. That so much evidence from so many different fields could all converge on the same conclusion might be false isn't just improbable, it's nearly impossible. It's like having a thousand independent witnesses having seen the same event, all testifying the same details, corresponding to CCTV footage from hundreds of cameras, corresponding to a post-event forensic analysis. Yet the arrogance of creationists is that it's a massive worldwide conspiracy and everyone and everything is wrong and the cameras were all simultaneously hacked and the forensics team is bought, and if I just believe something different, that makes it true....