If we could step aside from the unseemly point scoring for a moment, there is an interesting point to be made here.
Do artefacts designed by humans demonstrate the same kind of developmental patterns as living things? The answer is no, they don't. There was a Scientific American article on this some time back in which they used the parsimonous techniques used to produce phylogenic trees for living things and applied them to the varying forms of trumpet and related musical instruments. The resulting trees look nothing like those that you find in nature. Whereas those in living creatures show predomitantly biurificating trees, those from artefacts show flat plateaus from which several "descendants" emerge.
What's more, if you look at human designed artefacts you see a lot of horizontal transfer - features from one family will suddenly appear in another - something that simply doesn't happen in higher animals.
So, simply by looking at the data, we could easily establish a difference between things we
know to be designed and natural living things.