[[Why do examples of living things we know to be designed — by humans — differ from things whose genomes are consistent with common descent?]]
Ask it in a different way- I’m seriously not feelign well and my head is reeling- Perhaps I’m just not catchign hte drift of whast you’re asking
Well let me restate it as simply as possible.
In archaeology we recognize human artifacts by comparing found objects with objects known to be human artifacts. Because we have living cultures at various stages of technological sophistication, we can observe people making pots and arrowheads using techniques passed down from generation to generation. In other words, we know what kinds of things people make and we can directly compare made objects with found objects.
In biology, we do not have the privelege of directly observing the Creator making living things. So we have inferred the creation by analogy with human invention and manufacture. Hence the use of the word "intelligent."
But the analogy with human invention, design and manufacture fails in biology. Living things designed and manufactured by humans have footprints in their genomes that indicate they were designed by humans.
When humans modify a food crop, they use genetic material form outside the lineage of the crop. They make things whose genomes do not fit the nested hierarchy that non-engineered things share. It is easy to spot the difference between a living thing whose genome fits the nested hierarchy and one that doesn't.
One fits the mandatory constraint on descent with modification, and one does not.
So the question is, why is it so easy to spot the things that we know to have been designed? why is that when designers who are around and whose work we can observe do their thing, their work differs dramatically from work that could be the result of incremental change?
It’s not just you.