Summations Only

As already shown, just because humans are able to make something in no way indicates that an intelligence is always required to make it. There is absolutely no reason why natural processes can't produce intricate designs.

I do have the evidence. It is the matching phylogenies of morphology and DNA sequences. You still can't address it.

By what definition?

You are shifting the burden of proof. It is up to you to provide evidence for your claims.You haven't presented any evidence that intricate design is produced by a supernatural deity, so your claims are dismissed.

No, I mean the evolution of the mammalian middle ear. We have the functional intermediate stages which Behe claims shouldn't be there. They are there. We have the step by step evolution of the irreducibly complex middle ear.Behe argues that all three bones have to be in the middle ear, or no functional middle ear. The reptile-mammal transitional fossils disprove this. Not at all. Most DNA in a genome has nothing to do with morphology. Even then, you could have drastically different sequence for DNA that does result in morphology and still have the same morphology. For example, you could completely change codon usage, or mix and match DNA sequences from different species.In fact, that's exactly what humans do. We take DNA from very distantly related organisms and mix them together. For example, there are fish that fluoresce due to carrying a jellyfish gene that humans put there. So why couldn't a deity do the same thing?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

It goes way beyond that. There was a discussion on phylogenetics a few months ago where it discussed the calculations involved. There is an equation you use to figure out how many trees are possible given the number of characteristics you are sorting. As it turns out, for 30 characteristics there is an astonishing 10^38 possible trees."So, how well do phylogenetic trees from morphological studies match the trees made from independent molecular studies? There are over 1038 different possible ways to arrange the 30 major taxa represented in Figure 1 into a phylogenetic tree (see Table 1.3.1; Felsenstein 1982; Li 1997, p. 102). In spite of these odds, the relationships given in Figure 1, as determined from morphological characters, are completely congruent with the relationships determined independently from cytochrome c molecular studies (for consensus phylogenies from pre-molecular studies see Carter 1954, Figure 1, p. 13; Dodson 1960, Figures 43, p. 125, and Figure 50, p. 150; Osborn 1918, Figure 42, p. 161; Haeckel 1898, p. 55; Gregory 1951, Fig. opposite title page; for phylogenies from the early cytochrome c studies see McLaughlin and Dayhoff 1973; Dickerson and Timkovich 1975, pp. 438-439). "
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1So out of the 1x10^38 possible combinations of DNA bases for cytochrome c that a designer could have chosen (reminding you again that cytochrome c has nothing to do with morphology), the designer just happened to pick the 1 combination of similarities and differences that evolution would produce? That doesn't add up.No designer would spend the massive amounts of extra effort and time just to make designs fall into the pattern that evolution would produce when there is zero reason to do so with respect to function. It makes no sense.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

As I am sure you are aware, it is possible to put any set of objects into a nested hierarchy based on the distribution of a single characteristic. The difficulty comes in seeing if the tree holds up for all characteristics, or at least a statistically significant number of them. Does the tree for radial tires also match the tree for number of cylinders or type of drive system (2x4 v. 4x4)? Does the distribution of FM radios follow the distribution of fuel injection?