Find a rabbit in a Cambrian stratum. Or find a mammal with genes from two well-separated lineages.
If I handed you a deck of cards in perfect numerical order, would you refuse to believe they were ordered by an intelligent being unless I showed you a video of someone doing so?
Poor analogy. Genomes don't look like they're in perfect numerical order. They have broken genes, bits of ancient retroviruses, and close, tree-like relationships with other organisms. Everything about them screams evolution; nothing looks designed, unless the designer was drunk or insane.
Poor analogy. Genomes don't look like they're in perfect numerical order. They have broken genes, bits of ancient retroviruses, and close, tree-like relationships with other organisms. Everything about them screams evolution; nothing looks designed, unless the designer was drunk or insane.
What I want to see is this deck of cards that, in order to be suitable (no pun intended) for this analogy, must be the result of self-replication that passes on heritable, imperfectly copied genetics.
"Poor analogy. Genomes don't look like they're in perfect numerical order. They have broken genes, bits of ancient retroviruses, and close, tree-like relationships with other organisms. Everything about them screams evolution; nothing looks designed, unless the designer was drunk or insane."
I was not suggesting that an ordered deck of cards resembles a living organism. I was merely giving an example of a situation in which "intelligence" can be statistically inferred without actually showing how, when, or why the intelligence was introduced.
You evolutionists are true masters at aggressively missing the point. One the one hand, you make general philosophical assertions about ID theory ("isn't even a theory," "is unfalsifiable," etc.), then when you are challenged on your logical principles you revert to particular cases to obfuscate the underlying philosophical point.