You’re not making a case Bill. A case involves presenting positive evidence. All you’re doing is repeating your ignorance based personal incredulity. It’s the only thing you’ve ever offered.
Evolutionary theory is quite easy to falsify. Finding the fossil phylogenetic tree is vastly incongruent with the genetic based one would do it.
Like most Creationists you confuse not falsifiable with not falsified
You’re not making any case, you’re just asserting. To make a case you would have to make arguments, draw on evidence, and so on. Flatly staing “it’s is a better explanation” isn’t to make a case for anything.
Prove it. Provide your “separate origin” model, then compare it’s parsimony and goodness of fit(explanatory power) to the evolutionary model. Show that it is a better explanation wrt to parsimony and explanatory power.
This was one of the arguments (“God did it” as the easy solution to every difficult question) which helped lead me out of my “creation science” background. I realized that “Multiply both sides of the equation by zero” is also an easy solution to the most difficult math—but it doesn’t really explain anything that is helpful to our understanding. As a born-again Christ-follower, I certainly do believe that “God did it” but I want to know how. Science has methodology which helps us to explain how various things came to be.
I was originally agreeing with this in the beginning. A few years ago I started seeing a positive consequence of the design argument. It keeps science honest. A mind is as viable a mechanism as matter. If we find an explanation that does not entail a mind then we replace the design hypothesis with that explanation.
Right now we have naturalism of the gaps. What we need is to debate the gaps.
That’s not how science works Bill. You need to supply positive evidence for your hypotheses. Your fantasy is not “true” until someone else falsifies it.
Naturalism has physical mechanisms which explain the empirical evidence. Your Mind–>POOF hypothesis has wishful thinking. Come back when you identify a physical mechanism.
Based on what? What positive evidence do you have for separate origins?
Are you making the case that all those 200 genes found in modern species had to come about all at once? If not, why do you keep mentioning it?
The massive difference between the cells.
I am not making this case.
How does that evidence separate origins?
Then why do you keep mentioning it?
You don’t understand the concept of positive evidence, do you?
Just like the difference between bicycles and airplanes is evidence of separate origins. They are so different it makes sense to start from scratch.
Sure. Its evidence that Tim Horton approves of 
Bicycles and airplanes don’t have separate origins Bill. They were both invented by humans.
ETA: I suppose you didn’t know the Wright brothers ran a bicycle shop before they started experimenting with gliders and flight. 
I’m not the one you have to convince with your ignorance based personal incredulity.
I think it is fair to say that there are a lot of unanswered questions about a purely naturalistic explanation for life as we see it today. That is why there are thousands of labs around the world working to provide answers for some of these questions.
I disagree that what we need is to debate the gaps. This is how we end up with threads hundreds of posts long that never get anywhere. What we need is research-based evidence. This is where (historically and currently) ID falls woefully short of providing anything that addresses “XXX of the gaps” arguments.
“…A sprocket chain drive, borrowing from bicycle technology, powered the twin propellers…”
I have never seen anyone offer up the differences between bicycles and airplanes as evidence of their separate origins. Can you cite a paper where someone does that?
The evidence for bicycles and airplanes having separate origins is that they don’t reproduce. On top of that, we can directly observe them being made. Being different is not among the evidence for their separate origin.
You are substituting fallible human intuition for facts. We need facts, not your guesses.
I believe ID was an important driver in the 2016 royal society conference that debated new mechanisms of evolution.
I also think the design concept is a valid way to approach science. I don’t think reductionist thinking is.
ID is a niche argument and does not need to be endlessly debated but if a mind is the best explanation of the evidence so be it.
How about the difference between windows and the apple operating system. You can copy both until the cows come home.
Intuition is part of science. Sometimes it is wrong but it is an invaluable tool for creative solutions.
According to this paper, published just 2 weeks ago, the answer may be that the nuclear localisation signals evolved prior to the nucleus itself: Archaeal Ribosomal Proteins Possess Nuclear Localization Signal-Type Motifs: Implications for the Origin of the Cell Nucleus | Molecular Biology and Evolution | Oxford Academic
It was every bit as important as MAGIC!
It could be if the IDCers would ever come up with some testable hypotheses and actually test them. But all they do now is produce religiously based anti-science propaganda.
It’s not the best explanation. It’s no explanation at all.