Intelligent Design is also pointless, useless and significant only as a source of humor. If we look at the actual products it might be possible to make a case for Inept Design, Inelegant Design, Inefficient Design, Insane Design but certainly not Intelligent Design.
Which is why humans have had to redesign and rework the original designs of everything from Bananas and wheat and corn and tomatoes and potatoes and cattle and chickens even humans themselves to try to fix the really piss poor designs.
You can make up a string of supposed natural processes and convince yourself that's enough to disprove design but to someone else, like me for instance, it looks like a flimflam.
But that is simply not what scientists do as has been explained to you a brazillion times.
Science asks what could have caused something and then looks at the evidence, develops a hypothesis and the tests the hypothesis. Mendel did not just make up a string of natural processes, he did the tests and recorded the results and published the results and then others tested his explanation and when they all got the same results, a theory was presented.
That is what the Intelligent Design Snake Oil Salesmen never do.
There has never been any evidence to support design or the existence of any designer.
Of course not. As I said there can't be any evidence for or against, it's all subjective. No it's NOT testable.
The point is, Intelligent Design has absolutely no support while the standard explanation is fully and completely supported. Intelligent Design is simply fantasy while evolution is supported by reality.
Oh I don't think the standard explanation is all that supported, I think it's mostly a tissue of "likely stories" that have little real evidentiary support, just a lot of seeming plausibility and little more than that. Just an elaborate delusion.
Yes Faith, we know that you think that.
Yet once again, reality shows you are wrong.
Science has tested evidence and ID has only fantasy.
They have to involve mutations, right? In which case any claims of getting functional advantageous steps don't fit with any biological/genetic principles I've ever heard of. But of course perhaps you can enlighten me.
What happens if a mutation actually makes a critter better able to live in its environment?
I'd say that's a one in a million or zillion pleasant outcome, and of course I'd doubt it was a mutation, but more likely a beneficial combination of existing genetic stuff that happened to come along.
What you think is irrelevant. Whether or not it is a mutation can be determined by examining the DNA. Whether or not it helps can be checked by seeing if the critter has an advantage.
So the question remains; "What happens if a mutation actually makes a critter better able to live in its environment?"
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
Yet there is no evidence of any "Intelligent Cause" and lots of evidence of an undirected process such as natural selection. But ID is fun to laugh over. The possibility of an Inept Designer or Incompetent Designer or Ignorant Designer or Inelegant Designer is certainly supported by all the evidence.