Is there a legitimate argument for design?

I suppose we could forever quibble about what design is, how it should be defined, observed, measured, etc.. It seems to be a very root problem encountered over and over in this thread. I don't have a definitive answer that is likely to satisfy a scientist.

As to distribution of shared and derived characteristics, I have given you the glass ball analogy which answers you in my mind. If it does not answer you, give me a more specific question and I will give a more specific answer.

Wow, there is a slippery slope around here. People keep "saying what you are saying" without saying what I have said. I said none of what you said I said. Please restate. . .hmmmmm. you sound angry. If you will point me to a place where "usual bullshit answers" are listed, I will try to avoid them in the future.The truth is the glass ball analogy was mine (in the context of discussing ID). If someone has used it previously in this context, I was not aware. . .If you will modify your statement with the insertion of "In my opinion" at the front, I will take no exception with what you said.

If a scientific argument is a precept for legitimate argument you may be eliminating the possibility of an argument based on logic and reason which is what I have been trying to do.

But I have a question, does science acknowledge logical and reasonable arguments can exist outside of what science has postulated,theorized, tested, proved, etc..?

If the answer is no, then I know no way to restate and continue the conversation. Science has closed further conversation a priori.

Having found no potential for intellectually honest debate on this thread, I will leave all you good people to go about whatever it is you do.