No. A scientist who does not work in actual science is not a scientist; if you’d bothered to actually read my response to you, you would have understood that.
Have you found a UFO on another planet? Find one, and then we’ll talk. But there is no resemblance between living things and designed things.
We live in a world where humans modify or even construct genomes using pieces of the genomes of existing creatures. But again: if you are saying that humans designed all living things, you will need to show that humans existed before all such things, which is going to be a bit of a problem for you. There is no empirically demonstrable entity capable of doing the work.
Read Jenny Clack’s book Gaining Ground, look at the dermal skull roofs of Eusthenopteron and the early tetrapods, and tell me why YHWH, ineffable sticker-onner-of-legs, used lobe-finned fish instead of just creating tetrapods. And then empirically demonstrate that your god exists, and has the capacity to do this.
In that particular case, there is no such shuttle (and, if I do not have my physics badly wrong, there almost certainly cannot be one). So we have no need to explain whether it is designed or not. But if one were built by humans, it would have the earmarks of human manufacture; it would arise from human-developed technology, and its parts would have been made by humans in ways which we can understand by seeing how people do work of a similar character.
If we had a PC that could reproduce, and a line of succession in the PC fossil record that showed that the first autonomous transistors, capable of all functions required to maintain themselves “alive,” arose in the Cambrian, diversifying into a broader array of integrated circuits, and that these integrated circuits began to carry features like PC boards, and then to arise in functional clusters, until, by the Devonian, electronic calculators had arisen, whereupon some of those calculators sprouted carrying handles and, through a series of intermediates, became Kaypros, then Osbornes, then PCs; and if we could see in that record such things as the likely common ancestral group of Apple and PC products, and if those things were never known to be built by any design process but were instead always produced by PCs producing gametes which joined with those of other PCs, making an embryonic PC which unfolded, through whatever growth processes would be involved (some HAVE spoken of the possibility of silicon-based life…hmmm…)THEN we would not infer design. That’s the situation we have with living things.
No, of course not. And by the way, “complex” is an adjective. It’s a very flexible adjective, and we use it to describe a lot of things. Cats are complex. Computers are complex. But this does not mean that the complexity of cats is analogous to the complexity of computers in any way that is useful to you.
