Fibrosa

Since you bring it up, please tell us all how to test for ID, as opposed to assuming it.

Apparently.

Seriously, are you intentionally missing the point? Watches do not give birth to more watches, therefore there could be no naturalistic way for descent with modification. There are no mutations that could be naturally selected.

Therefore it's not a good analogy, because watches have to be designed and you can't just assume that nature does because that's the question that is attempting to be answered.

Unfortunately for the IDers evolution *does* explain the changes and does show us descent with modification.

There is no legitimate reason to invoke ID anymore, that reason ended with Darwin, who destroyed Paley's watchmaker argument.

I actually had to reread what you said. You are right, and I misread you initially.

It seems you perfer the magical creation of individual animals, instead of descent with modification and birth. After all, watches aren't born, nor is new technology. In fact, new technology doesn't come from old technology, as in you don't add the digital components to your hourglass, you update a design and create from totally new materials.

So in order to be a good analogy, you have to show this or, as I said from the beginning, the fact that watches can't have kids totally destroys your appealing to watches and designers.

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you were using the ID argument peddled by Behe, Dempski and Co. I wasn't aware that you had your own.

Since you do, please tell me the mechanism for change and all your current research into the subject.

Yeah, it can be viewed in any number of ways, my question is, is there any logical/rational reason for viewing it this way.

Also, if this were actually true, then why do we have retroviral inserts that we share with primates? Why do we have pseudogenes?

How does it show that we came from a common designer? According to your argument it would logically follow that there would be only one type of automotive manufacturer.

But alas, we have honda, ford, etc, etc.

Also, we have no reason to assume these objects were designed in the first place and many reasons to assume otherwise (including witnessing speciation and the twin nested heirarches).

What's ID got? God of the gaps and arguments from ignorance? That's not science.

Please present "your" ID argument.

(Fanboyish praise of evolution? It's just a respect for modern science. I wonder what other modern science you reject...)

And there you go, case closed, you have no mechanism. A weak appeal to genetic engineering, which doesn't actually constitute a mechanism.

Without a mechanism we can substitute the word 'magic' for design. I hope it is obvious to you that ID is just an empty appeal to ignorance and is not actual science.

Unless of course you don't think that science should be in the business of...you know, actually explaining things. I suppose it's much easier to point and say "God did it" or "aliens did it" or "an intelligent designer did it" then put in the sufficient elbow grease to actually figure out the phenomenon.

Additionally by your lack of a mechanism (and don't feel bad, no IDers have any) you implicitedly admit that evolution is more parsimonious then ID. Additionally the facade of ID being actual science is exposed as ID doesn't explain anything, it relies completely and utterly on an argument from ignorance-we don't (currently) know how this system was designed and therefore 'poof' it's magic brought to us via the common designer.

Yeah, keep believing that when the majority of IDers are Christians (or Raelians).

__________________
D'oh!