Responding to the comments from Damion starting here.
I missed the part of the article where you explained
YOU keep framing the issue in terms of "A Designer would've ___". That's what the BEAR article discusses, and yes the atavisms and vestiges are genera of the same question.
I’m asking someone who believes in an intelligent designer (anyone on the thread, really, not just you) to explain a particular pattern that actually exists in the data. Common descent makes sense of this pattern, but so far as I can tell, the design hypothesis does not.
The Designer made them that way. That makes sense of it, and explains it.
Now, I predict based on nearly innumerable past experiences that you're going to come back with "the Designer wanted to make it look like common descent?" Which I've already answered in at least two ways, which I will repeat here so everyone can keep score, and so maybe you'll actually advance the convo.
1) Your failure to recognise the many other sound and devastating refutations to Darwinism coupled with its total lack of evidence should help you understand that the fault lies with YOU for imposing the common descent paradigm on the facts, even though (by your own admission) the CD hypothesis doesn't explain all of them.
2) No, I don't know why the Designer did it that way, and neither do you, but it doesn't get us anywhere to keep asking that question over and over, esp when you admit you don't know anythg about the Designer.
Now, I hope that's the last time we ever have to discuss this.
Okay, then, what exactly should we expect to find on this hypothesis?
Meyer lists a dozen predictions on ID (scanned here for your convenience).
I listed quite a few in my BEAR1 article. I commend the Bible to your reading.
Refusing to engage in pointless name-calling counts as a defense, now?
Far from pointless. But clearly you can't bring yourself to bring one of y'all's heroes down a few notches. Fawning duly noted.
Of course there is a distinction between retrodictions and predictions, but both are necessary to get a working theory off the ground.
Not for historical questions. I'm sure PREdictions would be nice, but just b/c I posit George Washington crossed the Delaware as a conclusion of research, I don't need predictions about that to conclude it's true.
Is there any evidence from the tree of life or its fossils that might not be explainable under creation, on your view?
1) That's your job, really, as the skeptic.
2) One of the reasons I continue to blv in Christianity is that it succeeds in answering far more questions than other competing worldviews.
A creator can do anything it wants, up to and including speciation by common descent.
CAN, sure. But DID He? The Bible says He didn't. There's no evidence in CD's favor. the case doesn't look good.
Massive assumptions such as:
1) Individuals within a species exhibit new variations over time
2) Some variations are less adaptive to the environment than others
3) The Earth is really rather mind-bogglingly
Of all those, only #3 is an assumption. 1 and 2 are OBSERVATIONS.
The assumptions include the circular dating schemes you engage in, the interpretive grid you force onto the rocks you find in the ground, including ones that look like former life forms, dirt and water mixing together can somehow develop into elements of life that can convey vast amounts of information, that rocks mixed with water can produce information out of nowhere, and assuming that finch beaks getting larger and then going back to their original size means that rocks can become giraffes, given enough time.
That's more what I had in mind.
1. Does your concept of creationism have anything to say about how and why pseudogenes are distributed in species?
How, sure - God created and microevol affects the creation.
Why, not particularly, beyond the obvious, such as "God did it b/c He liked it and for His glory". Same for the other questions.
Well you can always posit that God supernaturally made the die come up six every single time, but there is a much simpler explanation to hand.
1) Simple is not always true. In fact, it's often NOT true.
2) How do you know it's simpler? God doing it seems to me a lot simpler than quintillions upon quintillions of coincidental occurrences. Maybe I'm missing sthg. If God is involved, it's not chance at all. You know that, right? So you have a workman in a workshop, or you have 10^gazillion rolls of the dice. I'm gonna go with the former as simpler.
I do not assume a given framework apriori.
Sure you do. You assume laws of science and mathematics exist. You assume your senses are reliable, that there really is an outside world and other minds. You assume your dating methods are correct. You commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent every single time you conclude something on the basis of observation, but that doesn't bother you. Your assumptions go on and on.
Surely you are not claiming that atavistic tails and GULOP pseudogenes (neither of which are at all functional in humans) are part of a deliberate design?
Damion, am I a creationist? Do creationists believe that God created everything?
If you think that God did in fact make some junk, on purpose, feel free to say so.
Ah, some Darwinism of the gaps! It's junk, you think, b/c you don't know what function it could possibly perform. So, since you know all, it's junk!
Micro-evolution cannot account for any of these elements, because they are exhibited across different species within clades.
You, a Darwinist, are objecting to coincidence? Please!