No, try fish and mammals where smoke and mirrors doesn't cut it.
I do not disagree that things in my body have a purpose. I disagree that that is evidence that they were designed.
Well then, you disagree with basic deductive logic and common sense. So if you walked into a garage and saw a car for the first time, you would deny that its components and overall makeup that a myriad of specific and definite purposes that operated together was evidence of a designer? Hard to imagine.
I asked what would count as evidence for "transference," and you said "fossilized evidence of the various stages." I pointed out that we have fossilized evidence of the various stages, and you say that's just evidence of "certain commonalities." Given that fossilized evidence, by definition, comes from the distant past, how would such evidence show "various stages" without showing "certain commonalities"? Are you from the "fish gives birth to a bird" school of evolution deniers?
you disagree with basic deductive logic and common sense. So if you walked into a garage and saw a car for the first time, you would deny that its components and overall makeup that a myriad of specific and definite purposes that operated together was evidence of a designer?
Three things: (1) So your standard for scientific evidence boils down to "seems logical to PapaNew." Impressive. (2) Cars don't reproduce themselves. And you thought my river analogy was weak! (3) Apparently, if someone showed you a Model T from the oldest part of the junkyard, a 1955 Chevy from a newer part, and a 2000 Lexus from the newest part, and pointed out the changes made to certain systems at each stage that brought them closer to what we see on a 2014 Ford, you'd say that was just evidence of "certain commonalities"--that the sequence was otherwise unrelated.