I ask once again, describe the natualistic processes which created bacterial flagellum or tactile sensory units. Based on the scientific method of course.
Here's a quite useful model for how the flagellum could have evolved:
Each step introduces or takes away one protein or set of ancestral proteins already known to the bacterium, and each step has a clear advantage for the organism. It's not
proven, but it does show a clear way the flagellum could have evolved, step by step. Which is where this sort of falls apart:
Biological systems exhibit the properties of sophisticated engineered systems that resemble methods developed by human engineers to accomplish complicated tasks.
Which is all well and good when you consider it in one direction (system designed -> system has methods that resemble those by human engineers), but doesn't work at all when you necessarily consider the other direction (system has methods that resemble those by human engineers -> system designed). See, the issue here is falsification. How would we tell that any given complex system was
not designed? I'd posit it's trivially possible for a system put together with no intelligence behind it to resemble a human invention. Case in point: the above model of the flagellum. There's no intelligence necessary for that model to be correct. Even
if the flagellum didn't actually evolve like that, the fact that it
could have and you see it as an example of this shows that there's a clear problem.
In biological systems we have those systems similar in human designs that include control signals that include information, detection and decision, signaling to induce a response from other systems all for a set goal. Planning is shown from mechanisms that are for correction and back-up systems that do not go into effect unless some event occurs which shows planning to address possible occurrences.
Signaling mechanisms are ostensibly useful for biological systems. It makes perfect sense that they would be present even with no design as they offer a distinct survival advantage. Back-up systems are often a result of the bottom-up approach, as we see beautifully in bacterial chemotaxis. Again, nothing here necessarily separates a designed system from a non-designed system, because according to the evidence we have, systems like these
did come about naturally, with no design involved, and while we cannot turn the clock back and observe their evolution in action, we can easily model hypothetical pathways by which they could have evolved. This shows that they need not be designed, which poses a serious problem for your criteria. Again, it comes down to you
asserting design, not demonstrating it.
The bacterial flagellum looks like a well-designed helicopter rotor to you and probably quite a few others. And yet, piece by piece, natural processes could have formed it. How do we distinguish this?
That is okay, biologists do.
You mean like Richard Dawkins, who is
quoted as saying:
The world is divided into things that look as though somebody designed them (wings and wagon-wheels, hearts and televisions), and things that just happened through the unintended workings of physics (mountains and rivers, sand dunes, and solar systems). Mount Rushmore belonged firmly in the second category until the sculptor Gutzon Borglum carved it into the first. Charles Darwin moved in the other direction. He discovered a way in which the unaided laws of physics — the laws according to which things “just happen” — could, in the fullness of geologic time, come to mimic deliberate design. The illusion of design is so successful that to this day most Americans (including, significantly, many influential and rich Americans) stubbornly refuse to believe it is an illusion. To such people, if a heart (or an eye or a bacterial flagellum) looks designed, that’s proof enough that it is designed.
[...]
The arguments of creationists, including those creationists who cloak their pretensions under the politically devious phrase “intelligent-design theory,” repeatedly return to the same big fallacy. Such-and-such looks designed. Therefore it was designed.
...Which means earlier in the thread you were clearly misquoting him.
It is intuitive to believe that complex biological systems were designed. Just like it is intuitive to believe that euclidean geometry is correct, that our memories are always accurate, and that single particles cannot act as waves. At least three of those completely intuitive assertions are
totally wrong. The fourth? Well, unless you can provide strong evidence, beyond "it looks like a human design, ergo it is designed"... I'm sorry, but there's just nowhere to go with this argument. We're stuck. Without showing either a clear hallmark of design with no known naturalistic mechanism for something arising, or showing us the designer, there's no way to reasonably assert design.