Are you confident that all living things on Earth evolved from a common ancestor via the process of natural selection?

Yes, due to the vast amount of evidence and the cross confirmation of the twin-nested hierarchy of taxonomy through multiple lines of evidence.

The two absolute clinchers are the endogenous retroviral DNA at the same locations in human and chimp DNA and the head-to-head fusion of simian chromosome number 2 in humans.

If evolution is not true, it would mean that someone specifically created these lines of evidence just to fool anyone smart enough to figure them out. Such a being would be a liar and a trickster, so anything that being said simply couldn't be trusted.

Yes every living thing on Earth has evolved from a common ancestor. Is evolution exclusively the result of natural selection? No! There's artificial selection and genetic drift, which are other mechanisms that have an effect on evolution.

Common ancestor? Extremely confident. All available evidence shows all extant organisms descended from a single ancestor that lived perhaps 3.5-4 billion years ago.

Through natural selection? That's not the only mechanism that drives evolution. Sexual selection and genetic drift play a part, as does artificial selection.

I am, but the explanation as to why is not simple, and that is why it is rather difficult to assert to common people. But I'll do my best to summarize why: I've looked at arguments on both sides of this VERY carefully. Evolution is the best explanation, not for the origin of life precisely, but how life has progressed to the point it's at today. Common mutation as well as change in a species to the point where reproduction with the ancestral generation would be impossible have both been observed. Tack on hundreds of millions of years worth of these changes, and it's viable for life to become EXTREMELY diverse from simple forms. This is of course a very drastic oversimplification of why evolution works as an explanation. Try reading Michael Shermer's Why Darwin Matters, and watching some of AronRa's Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism, not only to understand why evolution works, but why Creationism fails.

There seems to be a lot of evidence for evolution, yes. But a lot of the skeletons hailed as "positive proof" for a common ancestry, like a dinosaur with feathers, seem to be somewhat... I don't want to say fabricated, because I don't think it's a purposeful misleading. It's more like evolution has become an assumptive framework by which we interpret all the fossil records, without ever really considering the fact that it may become outmoded. (See the theory of spontaneous generation for a classic example of science that got outdated and now seems ridiculous.) While I don't want to immediately discredit evolution just because "it become outdated" or something, it seems prudent to consider other possibilities and not put all my eggs in one basket. If we aren't constantly assessing our position, we will never find any new possibilities.

No.

I accept that as the most viable scientific theory explaining the existence of multiple species on Earth.

However: I am not confident that all living things on Earth, without a single exception, are the result of that process. For example:

- it's possible that the original life form still exists somewhere on Earth, perhaps in subterranean volcanic/oceanic caverns

- it's possible (though unlikely) that life on Earth derived from more than one "original" life form, that two or more independent life forms are "common ancestor" rather than one

etc.

So: though the available evidence strongly supports the theory of evolution (including the theory of common descent from a single life form), other possibilities - no matter how unlikely - do exist.

Nope, not any more.

Much has now evolved because of artificial selection. (selective breeding)

This is much faster than natural selection, and is seen in domestic animals, pets and even humans.

Of course. Why? Because that is the conclusion that is supported by all available evidence, and there is no evidence at all supporting any other conclusion. It's a bit of a no-brainer, really.

The forbidden question of the evolutinist is where is nature come from or where does it evole from to become nature.

So don't mind talking about the matter of selection.

No, I'm putting my money on all the different ethnic groups descending from 2 naked white people who let themselves get pranked by a talking snake.