Analogies are a bit dangerous but your choice might be instructive.
Each of your pieces of evidence are the facts of the matter( video, DNA etc.). These correspond to the individual bones of one fossil, the relationship between DNA, the age of fossils, the relationship between them.
However, each single piece of evidence you have given can be wrong or there may be alternative theories which explain them. We pick the best one that seems to fit ALL the available facts. Depending on what we know there will still be a little bit of doubt left.
As you may know fingerprints can be matched erroneously (there is some hint that this happens too often).
You are still 100% sure that you know who the murderer is and, as a jury member, are ready to convict. Then the defense attorney brings in the accused murderers twin. Are you still 100% sure?
In fact, you should not have been before. If each piece of evidence can be wrong there is some chance (perhaps very, very small) that the conclusion is wrong.
The analogy has another valid comparison to evolution. We are pretty darn sure that the murder happened. Just as we know that evolution happened.
What you, in the jury are trying to determine is how
it happened. That is analogous to the fact of evolution occuring and the theory of just how it could happen.
The analogy might break down on a quantitive basis if you consider the shear volume of evidence and relationships between all of it in comparison to the miniscule evidence that you would have for any murder case.
Edited to correct two dumb spelling mistakes.
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-28-2005 10:41 AM