A local creationist (probably with an engineering background) keeps repeating a mantra that "tactile sensory units" implies/proves that humans/living things were created because things with the same descriptive name are made by humans.
This creationist writes that he can present the evidence that this is so, but only seems capable of repeating the mantra/slogan.
In living things, a "tactile sensory unit" is a term used to describe the receptive field of a surface - skin, for example. Within skin, there are numerous types of cells that can generate action potentials (directly or indirectly) in response to various types of stimuli. There are, for example, dendrite-like structures surrounded by a cluster of cells that, when mechanically deformed (bent), will allow for the opening of sodium channels on its membrane to ultimately produce an impulse that travels to the brain where it is interpreted (in this example as light touch - a pacinian corpuscle).
This is, apparently, so very much like a microchip-controlled piezo-electic device that can respond to pressure that creationists insist that the analogy between the two means that both were deigned (since we know that the human made one was deigned and made by humans).
There are currently exactly ZERO known examples of biological structures that were designed or made by anyone or anything.
Thus, the argument being employed is a strained analogy presented as evidence - the claim that both the biological TSU and the human made TSU exhibit "design characteristics" or some such gibberish that therefore the conclusion is design.
I have asked a couple of times for this creationist to compare the structures of these things and to show that the biological TSU is designed, but all I get are assertions.
This is actually nothing new or novel.
About 12 years ago, I was in a conversation on another forum with a creationist who made a child's toy as a project in college, and he made the same basic claim - that because he used design principles on this toy, and living things look designed to him, that they were similar and therefore designed. Pretty naive stuff, but he could produce nothing more than a repetition of his slogans, just like the creationist on this forum today.
The saddest part is that they actually seem to think that they have made some kind of major argument.
Anyway - here is the chance to lay out the argument.
Lets see the actual evidence and the rationale - not just repetition of the mantra. Because after all - mantras are no more evidence than are analogies.
This creationist writes that he can present the evidence that this is so, but only seems capable of repeating the mantra/slogan.
In living things, a "tactile sensory unit" is a term used to describe the receptive field of a surface - skin, for example. Within skin, there are numerous types of cells that can generate action potentials (directly or indirectly) in response to various types of stimuli. There are, for example, dendrite-like structures surrounded by a cluster of cells that, when mechanically deformed (bent), will allow for the opening of sodium channels on its membrane to ultimately produce an impulse that travels to the brain where it is interpreted (in this example as light touch - a pacinian corpuscle).
This is, apparently, so very much like a microchip-controlled piezo-electic device that can respond to pressure that creationists insist that the analogy between the two means that both were deigned (since we know that the human made one was deigned and made by humans).
There are currently exactly ZERO known examples of biological structures that were designed or made by anyone or anything.
Thus, the argument being employed is a strained analogy presented as evidence - the claim that both the biological TSU and the human made TSU exhibit "design characteristics" or some such gibberish that therefore the conclusion is design.
I have asked a couple of times for this creationist to compare the structures of these things and to show that the biological TSU is designed, but all I get are assertions.
This is actually nothing new or novel.
About 12 years ago, I was in a conversation on another forum with a creationist who made a child's toy as a project in college, and he made the same basic claim - that because he used design principles on this toy, and living things look designed to him, that they were similar and therefore designed. Pretty naive stuff, but he could produce nothing more than a repetition of his slogans, just like the creationist on this forum today.
The saddest part is that they actually seem to think that they have made some kind of major argument.
Anyway - here is the chance to lay out the argument.
Lets see the actual evidence and the rationale - not just repetition of the mantra. Because after all - mantras are no more evidence than are analogies.
