Again, sorry for the delay in answering this post.
The quote above is odd. You must not be keeping up with the ID literature. The Discovery Institute Center for Science & Culture now has an Engineering Working Group. At a Discovery Institute meeting in Oct 2016 in Calgary, I was discussing some of these concepts with a small group including Stephen Meyer, and he came to me afterwards wanting to talk. We only discussed it briefly but he was intrigued as were others and it led to the formation of their new Engineering Working Group. That’s when I realized I had to start learning biology. I’m making progress, but still have a long ways to go. The Working Group pointed its participants to a paper from Cell Systems titled “What Have the Principles of Engineering Taught Us about Biological Systems?” Here’s a link to that paper: https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S2405-4712(16)00009-0 So back to your question, “Why are pro-ID folks who know biology not making the arguments I’m making?” Answer: They are just beginning to see its value, and are starting to dig in.
Wow! I thought I had, at least the more substantive evidence. What comes to mind first is my challenge that the evidence for evolution strikes me as being marginally qualified to even be called evidence. It’s more an extrapolation of hypotheses to cover the numerous data gaps. It qualifies as hypotheses, but not much more. When you recommend as a test “Look at the Fossils.” I have to comment that one must first establish that the incomplete and discontinuous fossil record even qualifies as an arbiter for the test outcome. Surely you see the weakness in such an assumption!
The whale narrative is weak for the same reason. An expectation that the fossils will eventually be discovered to fill in the gaps where you have conjectured their existence is not a valid test criteria. I’m seriously waiting for you guys to provide some real evidence, not the kind that is unproven in a scientific sense.
I am currently listening to an old debate (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7gZhksK9Sw) which has some good but also bad points. The best was when David Berlinski asked the question to Eugenie Scott, “Can you give us your best estimate of the number of changes required to take a dog like mammal to a sea going whale?” She could not, so Berlinski asked her, “How on earth can you commend the mechanism if you are unsure it’s adequate to deliver the result?” He sees the same weaknesses that I do, and like him, I’m not getting good answers about the mechanism that warrant embracing evolution as the answer. James Tour sees this also as a key question, “What’s the mechanism?”
Regarding your question on primate genes and the claim that they are understood sufficiently to conclude that evolution is true, I have to push back. How so do you understand it? You’ve seen some simple mutation/outcome scenarios, but does that fully characterize the relationship between the genes and their associated functions in an ape and a man sufficient to conclude that there’s no difference? Are your tests really that comprehensive? And if there are, how does that rule out design? Please don’t invoke the rule that says “God wouldn’t do it that way.”
I’m sure I could find plenty of support for it, but does that settle it, especially since the published literature won’t publish views that challenge evolution?
It’s interesting that I see design where you see evolution. The nice thing about the SE world is that you don’t have to rely on people to assess results, you rely instead on test results that rigorously define the test, and the principals and rules of science to interpret them. I highly recommend it. It’s value is asserted in the link I provided above.
You really need to approach confirmation of evolution by more scientific methods, methods that don’t fall prey to biased interpretation.
By the way, Ken Miller in one of the debate segments provided a “clear example of macro evolution.” It was a species of butterfly in Hawaii. It had some new structures in its mouth that enabled it to eat a certain kind of fruit. Reminded me of Darwin’s finches. Not a good example. But isn’t it interesting that evolutionists consistently offer examples of micro-evolution to prove macro-evolution. This will be helpful as we zero in on how to evaluated evidence. Criterion for assessing evidence is going to be the key that determines whether evolution or design best explains the observables.