Facepalm all you like.
I accept evolution as the best explination but I don't think its as cut and dry as some do.
The reason I facepalmed is because you spoke about "adaption to a situation" in a specific moment in the life of an organism.
Evolutionary adaption is not about that.
Take the dino meteor, it wiped out most of the food and if you needed 500lbs of food a day to survive, you wouldn't survive. Smaller species that needed less food adapted/were already able to survive what happened. The ones that died or survived wasn't about mutations or niches in my opinion.
It was, as it always is, about how they fitted in the environment.
Since the environment underwent
radical change in a very short period, life did not have any time to slowly change with it. So yes, at that point it's all about what can and can't survive. Such radical change in environment always brings about radical change in the biosphere.
This isn't the first time in history it happened, and it won't be the last either.
There's this quote in the natural sciences that says "
Every couple 100 million years or so, everything that weighs more then 25 kg, dies."
It's not entirely accurate, but it paints an accurate enough picture. Such events bring about mass extinction. Evolution has no answer to such events. If your biological buildup can withstand the change, you might live. Otherwise, you die.
And then, when all is said and done and the dust settles, a "new world" begins, with plenty of new niches to fill in a radically different bio-landscape. In case of the dino extinction, the era of the mammal began and a new bio-balance evolved.
Such events are just as much part of evolutionary history and the evolutionary process as any other.
I also think more than one species of ape evolved toward human but only a few became dominant, started interbreeding and here we are.
No. A species does not evolve twice.
There were various homo branches though. All of them with a common homo root.
If we would meet a neanderthal today, I'm pretty sure we would recognize him/her as a human. A funny looking one perhaps, but human nonetheless.
I also don't think the big bang is cut and dry. It all either came from nowhere or it all always existed.
The big bang isn't a theory of origins. The origins of the big bang are unknown. What you present there is a false dichotomy.
Maybe a spill over from another universe, who knows.
Idd, who knows.
But the big bang refers to the development of the universe. Not it's origins. It deals with the inflation/expansion of the universe.