Detecting design or intent in nature

[Esquilax]

Your "explanation"....if you can call it an explanation.....is the atheist's equivalent to "God works in mysterious ways". Your "explanation" explains nothing and is merely an attempt to hand wave away observations you find uncomfortable to confront.

If it seems that way to you, it's probably due to honest bafflement as to what, exactly, you expect to be happening. The only way we know that human designed evolutionary systems are human designed is because we've witnessed them in the process of design; functionally they work the same as every other evolutionary system, because they were designed to imitate the one we observe in nature.

Put simply, if your claim is true... how would we tell? If it behaves exactly like an already extant evolutionary system, how do we tell it apart from that original system? Furthermore, wouldn't a new evolutionary system require the existence of new life from scratch? I mean, any system that utilizes life that evolved due to the unbroken chain of life we observe in nature would really just be another part of that existing system, wouldn't it? So if what you're asking is why don't we see new abiogenesis events today, I'll point you back to my second answer; the Earth has changed a whole lot since its early prebiotic days, it's very possible the environment has altered so much it's no longer conducive to that.

The problem is twofold: your claim is so vague as to be useless, and it's also totally unfalsifiable. But hey, speaking of handwaving, I do notice you've yet to answer ninety percent of my contentions with your argument here, and the ones you have have been exactly that; handwaving which violates the basic premises of your position.

Interesting, how much you project.

The argument you made is logically sound, it just isn't compelling because you haven't observed very much of reality.

Neither have you; why not just admit that, rather than make self refuting arguments to further ideological goals you'd decided on before examining the evidence? Why do you get to argue against natural evolutionary systems using the "we haven't observed X" argument, but the moment somebody uses it against you, you appeal to a lack of observations as a defense? You've completely inverted the way your position works in order to defend it.