Perry
Humans can appreciate the beauty of the bowers built by bower birds see it as different and more attractive than normal bird-built structures and female plumage. Female bower birds can see the same differences, and can finely judge the differences in attractiveness between various male's bowers. As this is the case your claim "The ability to appreciate and know beauty is unique to our species" is wrong. The bower bird example is just one of a number of example at least as large as the number of bird species where the male has brighter plumage
The posession of morality
Oh for Pete's sake. Vampire bats have forms of morality. So does my cat; she looks guilty when she's doing something she knows she isn;t allowed to do, even if she thinks no-one is watching her. "Morality" as in the existence of a correct set of actions for a situation exists in many species. Your ignorance of this is not an indication of it being of divine origin, yet like they say "Omne Ignotum Pro Magnifico Est".
We neither fit in the animal kingdom, nor God's kingdom.
I can prove we fit in the animal kingdom. You cannot prove either way whether we fit in god's kingdom or not.
Humans live in a persistent state of desperation
Speak for yourself. Just because you need an imaginary friend to make your existence enjoyable doesn't mean we all do.
Darwinism is so shapeless that it can be enlisted in support of any cause whatsoever.
As Christianity has been enlisted in support of any cause whatsoever (slavery, misogyny, genocide) it must be shapeless too. Of course, just as you claim bad things like those I list are not from Christianity but were people misrepresenting what Christianity is, so I will claim things like eugenics and marxism are not from evolution but were people misrepresenting what evolution is.
Both selfishness and (with a little mathematical ingenuity) altruism can be given a Darwinian twist.
Or a Christian one.
nor does the imagined historical scenario have to leave any trace behind.
Your lack of introspection in even saying this, given your beliefs, is astounding.
So in Darwinian "logic", if an organism possesses features that appear on the surface to be inconvenient, such as the peacock's tail or the top-heavy antlers of a moose, the existence of moose and peacocks proves that these animals are in fact fit!
Perry, don't you feel you have more to lose than win by chuntering on about a subject to an extent that reveals how little you know about a subject? I see that your limited reading into evolution skipped over sexual selection, and that also you seem to miss that some phenologies may indicate fit genologies, and that those females of the species who select those phenologies (sexual selection) may unwittingly be selecting for fitness. Human intelligence probably arose as a result of sexual selection. As did the shape and structure of
the human penis. More Omne Ignotum me thinks.
Convince you that they speak for God.
And you differ from the Borg in what respect Perry?
Unless you are willing to accept that you may be wrong in what you say about god and the Bible you area no better than the Witnesses. Do you accept that you may be wrong Perry?