As we get farther and farther from this principle in archaeology, the claim of artifact becomes more and more controversial.
In the case of living things we have no objects whose creation we have witnessed. Nor have we seen any designer in action. Other than variation and selection.
OK, we have seen engineered organisms, but they hurt your case rather than help it, because they can easily be distinguished as artifacts.
Other than plants and animals that have been bred through selection, we have no examples of living artifacts that fit the genomic nested hierarchy. And of course, breeding programs are exactly what led Darwin to his theory.
As we get farther and farther from this principle in archaeology, the claim of artifact becomes more and more controversial.
In the case of living things we have no objects whose creation we have witnessed. Nor have we seen any designer in action. Other than variation and selection.
OK, we have seen engineered organisms, but they hurt your case rather than help it, because they can easily be distinguished as artifacts.
Other than plants and animals that have been bred through selection, we have no examples of living artifacts that fit the genomic nested hierarchy. And of course, breeding programs are exactly what led Darwin to his theory.
Stunning.
Let's see...where to begin?
The biggest problem with ID is that when we go about looking for artifacts as opposed to natural formations -- say in archaeology -- we need to have examples of objects whose history is known. Watches, for example. Or clay pots or arrowheads.
Why? We don't know the history of things when we look at "common descent"...as a matter of fact, what we do know is fossils have been faked. Who's to say in the future we're not able to determine scientifically more fossils were faked? Or that we've made mistakes in dating them? And above all, that just because we share DNA with monkeys doesn't necessarily mean we share a common ancestor?
In the case of living things we have no objects whose creation we have witnessed. Nor have we seen any designer in action. Other than variation and selection.
That depends completely on the premise and your ideology, because I haven't seen a living thing that HASN'T been created and designed!
OK, we have seen engineered organisms, but they hurt your case rather than help it, because they can easily be distinguished as artifacts.
Non-sensical because of faked fossils AND you've yet to come up with a batch of chemicals in soup suddenly crawling and breathing all by themselves, and that's even WITH intelligently designed experiments!
Other than plants and animals that have been bred through selection, we have no examples of living artifacts that fit the genomic nested hierarchy. And of course, breeding programs are exactly what led Darwin to his theory.
Intelligently designed experiments are what led Darwin, and basically every scientist, to their conclusions. Observing that things just up and form, and walk all by themselves with no Creator is pure conjecture. Supposing that man and apes, and indeed all life came from a single celled organsim is again sheer conjecture.
You continue to hold ID to ridiculous rules that you totally ignore when it comes to Darwinism, etc.