The Problem with Christians

[Esquilax]

I think that there is some equivocating here.... In that what is meant by evolution.  Normally  what is being contested isn't gradual change over time, but common descent.  If I am incorrect in this assumption, then I am curious what do you think wouldn't work in biology without universal common descent evolution?

Contextually, it was pretty clear to me that AAA wasn't just talking about common descent, though. He was fairly dismissive, to my reading, of the view that gradual change over time could happen, in his initial response to me. Of course, he's welcome to correct me on that.

Positive claims are made, in that complex specified information, and irreducible complexity are indicative of design. This is because these things require a choice and planning. Something which an intelligence is capable of, and which natural forces and chance are not. This can be tested by probability studies and knockout tests.

Um, you are aware that arguments from ignorance don't count, right? I asked for positive evidence, and you handed me a pair of negative arguments, especially in regard to the latter. Don't believe me? Let's write out the actual formulation of those arguments, then:

"DNA contains complex, specified information, and I can't see how that could happen without design," is, aside from the utterly meaningless buzzword-ey nature of the key phrase there, seeking to get to design by removing evolution from the possibility space. It's a negative argument based in ignorance: evolution can't explain the existence of this information, therefore god.

Irreducible complexity is even worse, because it's just "I can't see how these would have evolved, therefore they're irreducibly complex." Never mind that in every instance of supposed irreducible complexity, a reducibly complex answer has been found, the point is that, again, it's an argument that relies on evolution not having an answer, rather than actual positive evidence. Both of these claims just seek to reduce the pool of possible answers, fallaciously assuming there are only two options in there, rather than actively pointing to one particular option.