LOL! This is a historic moment. You did RESEARCH! And, really interesting research, at that! Congratulations! I commend you on actually attempting to learn something new, and provide the information to others.
Your smugness fails you again, there was no attempt to "learn something new."
Nothing new was revealed, there is nothing new under the sun....
I suggest that (1) your research doesn't support your original claim, i.e., your predictive capabilities with regard to biological aging, and (2) proof that single-celled organisms age is not proof of intelligent design, but rather is merely proof that entropy exists even in such organisms.
Your suggest, I disagree.
That all organisms, even single cell organism age, after a birth, moving toward death is argument for programming, for a design, and a designer.
You still have no scientific evidence of the existence of an intelligent designer.
You have no evidence that there is not an intelligent designer, and no evidence that the nature of biological organisms are the product of non-design, ignorant, unplanned, random chance.
From where I look, all I see is folks speculating based on insufficient data....but because they follow a "scientific modality" in gathering insufficient data then compiling that data to reach a speculative conclusion, they somehow think their scientific faith is superior or more accurate than a theistic or common sense faith.
You have made a rather loose observation that the fact that all lifeforms apparently age, indicates design rather than evolution.
Apparently age? Show me one biological organism that does not age....
This is not a loose observation, it is as tight as a drum.
But, why is it any more a function of design that organisms age, vis-a-vis that they do not? Why isn't aging a demonstration of an imperfect design, from a designer widely believed to be incapable of fault?
Who says the cycle of birth, lifespan, then death is not perfect?
Perhaps your evidence provides greater weight to the argument in favor of evolution, with all of its accidental magic, than it does any intelligent designer's wizardry.
I see no accidental magic, that is the point. If there were accidental magic of "evolution" randomly generating biological organisms to spontaneously or by interaction with the environment suddenly mutate new species, I would expect a progress in species of longer and long life spans, if not at least one that had achieved some condition of everlasting life.
After all, don't we as God's favorite creation attempt to generally design things to be as long lasting as possible? Why wouldn't God do similarly. Thus, built-in obsolescence is as likely a product of chance as it is design.
Our design would serve our own purpose. God's design would serve His purpose.
I don't confuse the two.
In summary, your research and your postulate does not favor either side of the argument.
My goal really is not to favor either side of the argument actually, but to demonstrate that there really is an argument.
If there is an argument, that argument should be presented to children in public school systems for them to weigh.
I see both sides of this debate actually, I could argue either side, but the point is that a well rounded education should produce people who can see that there are many sides to an argument, and that when there is insufficient data or fact to reach a conclusion....no conclusion should be taught.
However, it's certainly interesting information and I do thank you for your work.
Sure, no problem.