Don't construe a straw man argument. Read my statement:

We can say that for the history of our nation to be
accurate necessitates that George Washington is the founding
father of our country.

If what you describe happens, then the history of our nation is inaccurate, but the statement is still true. You're arguing a point I'm not contending. The primary extrapolation is that I'm extrapolating that a history book is accurate when I read it. What you're suggesting doesn't sound obsurd because if anyone really contended that George Washington was in fact not the founding father, I wouldn't fight them tooth and nail on it. Why? Because what do I know? I read a book, I have no firsthand knowledge. You understand what I'm saying? Its the same thing with evolution, the understanding of evolution, evolutionary rates, etc has been changing over the years and getting refined. If it was rock solid, it wouldn't need refinement, we'd just know that's the way it is. Punctuated equilibrium is an example of one such refinement.

So to say that you *know* man is solely the result of evolution and evolution is a complete and solid idea is off the bat incorrect.

Do you really not grasp this concept or what?