It is often argued that we can detect design directly without knowing anything about the designer. Paley's watch, for example.
But we detect artifacts made by humans by knowing something about humans and having examples of things we have observed humans making.
We also have examples of things made via evolution. Granted they are rather small things -- antibiotic resistance or nylon metabolism, for example. But we do have one guiding principle for things made via the agency of variation and descent: things related by common descent must have genomes that form a nested hierarchy.
But for the last couple of decades we have been accumulating examples of living thing known to be designed by humans. We have quite a few food crops that have been engineered by humans. We even have industrial bacteria that have been engineered, for example to produce human insulin.
The distinctive characteristic feature of living things whose history we know for certain, and which have been designed by humans, is that their genomes do not fit the nested hierarchy. In other words, we can separate living things into two categories: those that could have arisen via incremental change and those that could not not have arisen via incremental change.
[[We also have examples of things made via evolution. Granted they are rather small things — antibiotic resistance or nylon metabolism, for example.]]
you are asserting what here? Microevolution? Certainly you know these are not examples of Macroeovlution?
[[But we do have one guiding principle for things made via the agency of variation and descent: things related by common descent must have genomes that form a nested hierarchy.]]
But you will not accept that it could also be common design?
[[In other words, we can separate living things into two categories: those that could have arisen via incremental change and those that could not not have arisen via incremental change.]]
“Could have’” What evidnece supports ‘could have”? None that I know of- Macroevolution is still a biological, chemical, mathematical and natural entropy violating impossibility. It’s a far stretch, and unreasonable stretch at that to suggest somethign ‘could have’ arisen naturally via common descent. Anyone of htose impossibilites renders it unreasonable, but they all MUST be taken into concideration when discussing Megaevolution because Megaevolution posits that we need not take these things into concideration simply because of a VERY remote ‘could have’ chance- which flies i nthe face of the word impossible, for which htere are several serioous impossibilites facing Megaevolution.
[[It is often argued that we can detect design directly without knowing anything about the designer. Paley’s watch, for example.]]
Yes it is, and it’s also assumed that we can argue away design any way we like, whether hte artguments be reasonable, biologically possible or not. While one can mount an argument that even a watch can’t be a definate proof of a designer, by claiming natural forces somehow managed to form al lthe necessary parts, and some events caused them to self-aseemble themselves, thus ‘givign hte appearance of design’, these areguments woudl be silyl and unreasonavble- Them ore important point ot make is that hte arguments for Design present evidnece that is BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.