I think it's pretty easy to argue that the Designer isn't human and doesn't design like humans.
For one thing, the Designer went to a great deal of trouble to make living things look like they are related by common descent, right down to non-coding DNA and inherited scars from retrovirus infections. The Designer also also took great pains to make genomes that look like the result of incremental change.
By itself this doesn't prove anything, but we now have many examples of genomes designed or engineered by humans, and they lack these key diagnostic features. When humans are designing life they use genetic material that crosses species, families, even kingdoms. The human designer leaves fingerprints of his design philosophy all over the scene.
[[For one thing, the Designer went to a great deal of trouble to make living things look like they are related by common descent,]]
Really? He didn’t ‘go to a lot of trouble’ to make it look like common design?
[[The Designer also also took great pains to make genomes that look like the result of incremental change.]]
He did? Similar designs wouldn’t suffer similar ill effects? if no, Says who?
[[When humans are designing life they use genetic material that crosses species, families, even kingdoms.]]
What are you tryign to get at here JS? I’ve asked a couple of times, but what are you inferring? Are you saying genticists take genes from say a potato, and splice htem into a rubbarb plant? (Just pickign two dissimilar kinds)
IF so, lateral gene transference CAN be artificially manipulated by science- so what? What does htis show? We know all species have similar designs- We also know that you can take a wire off a Royles Royce, and put it in a Volswagon, and it will work- does it mean the Royce evolved fro mthe Volkswagon? Of course not- they were both created seperately. Whiel science CAN laterally transfere genetic material between dissimilar kinds, this does NOT happen in nature, and certainly did not happen literally millions of times without leavign a shred of evidnece behind-
The only species that allows natural gene transference is between bacteria- but htis is between species of a similar kind- Altering species genetically via lateral gene transference might work, but let’s try alterign them to the extent they MUST have been altered IF macroeovlution is true and see what happens? Species Do, once again, have built in parameters which only allow just so much change before they become non viable- We know this for fact, and yes, science has pushed to hte limits, but htey ALWYS run into the brick wall in hte end
Science has been able to- beleive it or not- introduce genetic info from a spider into a goat- the goat produced silk in it’s milk- Big deal- a tiny lateral gene transference artificially inserted, produced silk in milk- but again- let’s start introducign myriad genetic info and see what happens. Again, the brick wall. What htis hsows is not ‘common descent’ but rather common design, and it ALSO shows that species have very species specific built in protection levels that prevent alteration. Every species we know of has these species psecific parameters- but science tells us that ‘some time i nthe past’ all these parameters were non existent, and htne all of a sudden, these parameters all engaged all at once, and fro mthen on, no more macoreovlution was possible?