You're misrepresenting this argument by overstating its claims.No I am not. The language was yours. If your argument was overstated, look at your own post for the fault. I would suggest writing what you mean in future.
QED. There's your test. And I suspect that you were already well aware of the details.
Thanks for at least giving it a shot. Maybe we can come back to what "normal" means, whether your deductions were reasonable and other issues later. For now let's concentrate on the fundamental flaw.
What is the essential difference between design and non-design? It is that design is intended. I knock a glass off the shelf. Water and glass shards are all over the floor. Was that designed or not? It depends on whether or not I intended the result. Was I angry or simply careless?
So, where in your procedure do you test that the purported designer intended to produce this human insulin producing bacterium?
No I am not. The language was yours. If your argument was overstated, look at your own post for the fault. I would suggest writing what you mean in future. Huffiness on your part is not a logical refutation. If you don't understand my point, please say so.
So, where in your procedure do you test that the purported designer intended to produce this human insulin producing bacterium?
There is no logical requirement to provide a motive in order to make the "design" inference. For example, you do not need to know the motives of the designer to recognize that the following was designed:
(FWIW, its the Farlin BF-114-1 Lightning Ear Cleaner.)
Likewise, the presence of a perfectly duplicated and very specific human insulin gene within a bacterial genome is easily explained by intelligent action. We could even write down the specific steps by which it could be done. (And as an added bonus we'd be correct.) If we then go on to find the same human insulin gene in yeast (which you can), then you'd be even more likely to accept the design hypothesis.
A scientist who persists in arguing against design would be required to show that his "naturalistic processes" hypothesis is a better explanation. Good luck with that.