As stated, if your notion of "evolution" is as a scientific theory explaining all physical characteristics of biology, a set which includes organisms after 1951, it is directly false as a theory.
Citation needed. So the overwhelming concensus of the worldwide community based on an undeniable array of evidence is false because of what... I'm still waiting for something with some form of refutation and not just gassy wordplay.
.... I already stated my position on that subset is that it is untestable.
With respect to your design argument for which you refuse to provide a shred of evidence.... “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” – Christopher Hitchens.
We are at a point much like the situation regarding the Copenhagen and Everett interpretations of quantum mechanics--which is "true" is indeterminate as the same observables support either interpretation, and there is no presently test by which to demonstrate one correct "versus" the other.
Using fancy words to try to describe the situation as anything other than countless studies worth of proof versus philosophical procrastination without evidence will not change anyone's rational opinion.
There would be no overt difference in the fossil remains of an "engineered" versus "non-engineered" organism, just as the fossils of Dolly the Sheep (or any of the other thousands of available examples) would show no discernable evidence of engineering, even though that engineering, hence biological design, is a -fact-.
See Hitchens quote above, read it again and again until you get it.
If we are talking about "evolution" meaning "applying to all biology", then, again, as a statement about biology ascribing all physical characteristics to evolutionary process is simply false, which you can verify for yourself by googling any part of the history of genetic engineering.
Perhaps you can find a link to this mysterious study of genetic engineering that has rocked the world by disproving evolution but has somehow been overlooked by all reputable geneticists and biologists, I would be most obliged,
Genetically engineered organisms are biology, their characteristics were designed, and their biology can not be explained by natural selection mechanisms. Hence, a statement that "biology" per se is fully explainable by evolution is simply a false statement.
All the fields of paleontology, biogeography, morphology, developmental biology and genetics have all come to a cast iron conclusion based on very different but still insurmountably substantial EVIDENCE that you are just simply lying here. Please stop attempting to use vague and seemingly intellectual language in a way that you clearly don't fully understand.
It's quite simple fact, and is just there being the fact it is, and will remain so, regardless of how incompatible it may be to your habitual thoughts on the question.
I think you need to consider your words more carefully before you set them down. This is gibberish. You are clearly used to attempting to tech babble people with nonsense but its not going to wash here. Go and try and read up a little on the subject you are attempting to debunk, understand a little about it and you might actually learn something worthwhile. But if you cant provide any hard evidence that contradicts any of these carefully studied fields then understand that you are just blowing digital gas into the air without any real substance or meaning.
