I repeat. One finds evidence for design.
One cannot measure for the real mechanism proposed by evolution....not natural selection...but natural selection that leads to new species.
There are no observable examples in the process of doing so. Therefore, one compiles evidence.
What kind of evidence would one present to support the notion of "species transitioning natural selection?" Fossils, possible transitions, examples of non-transitional natural selection, etc.
As far as evidence for speciation, we rely upon fossil evidence and genetic evidence. We make anatomical comparisons and try to make hierarchical relationships based on that. Furthermore, in embryology, all vertebrates look almost exactly alike in the beginning stages of their growth. That means that there is some sort of relation - a similar minimal blueprint of sorts.
But as far as paleontology is concerned, it is a relatively new field of study. As far as transitional species go, every species is a transitional species. Unfortunately, out knowledge of the fossil record will always be incomplete. To complete the fossil record would require digging up the entire earth's crust and sifting through it. But to withold judgment of the fossil record based on its incompleteness is not going to work. At what point can we say we have enough information to make a judgment?
Fortunately for evolutionists, genetic analysis backs up the theory. Chimpanzees are our closest species relative, sharing 98% of our DNA. Can you seriously deny that chimpanzees are closer to us than other species, such as alligators? If you don't deny it, then that would mean speciation somehow took place. We didn't observe it, but we know it took place. We cannot observe the continents moving (actually, I suppose we can now thanks to our more highly advanced technology), but we know they have done so.
I assume you believe speciation took place. But how can you measure design? You can't. What are the criteria? I maintain measuring design is a subjective experience. To even want to look for evidence is a bad idea, akin to trying to read God's mind. The materialistic aspect of science is hard and complicated enough, I'll leave the metaphysics to others.