If we were to walk through the forest and spy a computer on a stump, most of us would naturally suppose that an intelligent builder designed it--that it did not exist as such by chance.
Hum, but wouldn't that depend on whether we had fossil evidence of very primitive computers (say Apples) that grew more complex as we dug through various levels of the local landfill? And say this fossil record went back for dozens of years and we saw evidence of screens growing smaller with burned in images (in fossilized color!) and motherboards growing more complex but then suddenly simpler as new chip species show up, and power cords attaching to surge protectors and then, finally, the spontaneous development of attached mice. What if we went further back a little more and dug up primitive single transistors? And how would evaluate the tube family and it's obvious connection to the transistor and the few remaining extant CRT's? And what about when we dug back thousand of years and found an abbacus and clay tablets from a primitive accounting system. Would we see the resemblence? Would we recognize the eternal struggle to escape the trash pile as the survival of the fittest? How would such discoveries affect our faith in the great computer designer in the sky?
But we do not have any evidence of such transformations - neither of computers nor of species. The fossil record is full of 'missing links". Very important ones too, in fact in all the important places - fish to frog, frog to lizard, lizard to mouse, ape to man. After 150 years of digging the fossils still do not show any evolution having taken place.