I'm baffled that you still seem resistant to accepting human evolution, even tho you accept it for other organisms. As several of us have tried to explain, the evidence is of a similar kind and degree. In fact, if anything, is somewhat better for humans, in terms of identifying at least some likely ancestors to a species or genus levels. For many modern species, it's hard to pinpoint those, even tho the general patterns of change in the fossil record and DNA studies are apparent at higher taxonomic levels. For humans, in contrast, the fossil and DNA evidence indicates that a least one prior Homo species was our ancestor (Homo erectus) and before that, the genus Australopithicus was in our line.
On top of that, we share a number of unique genes with other primates, which make no sense outside of evolution.
You say you don't know what the alternative explanation would be, and suggest that maybe God did create us separately. But you've still not answered how that jives with the above evidence. It would seem to imply a God who enjoys screwing with our heads - making it appear from several lines of evidence that we evolved, even tho we didn't. Do you think that's plausible, even in your "postmodern" view? I'm not even asking for a percentage of certainty, I'm asking just if you think it's as plausible as the conclusion that we evolved?
Speaking of postmodernism, were you serious when you said you were not even sure that you exist? If you're going to question even things like that, how can you ever be sure or reasonably sure of anything? And no matter what philosophical approach one takes, isn't it important to be consistent? That's why I don't understand your still questioning human evolution while accepting it for other organisms, when the evidence is at least as strong for humans.
You say we "forced" evolution on other creatures. However, humans have the same genetic code as they do, as you yourself acknowledged. We also could selectively breed ourselves in ways similar to domestic animals if we chose to (I can get into that more if you like). Regardless of that tho, since the fossil and DNA evidence for evolution is at least as strong for humans as for other organisms, your position doesn't seem very consistent or scientific. This leads me to ask whether you like many others have some non-scientific reason? Do you just not like the idea that we're related to apes, and more distantly, to amphibians, fish, marine invertebrates, and ultimately, microbes?