I don't have to prove that design in present in other things, only in the topic of the thread....tactile sensory units. And I've done that. Why don't you accept the observed elements of design in tactile sensory units?
You have done that using a particular method. However, if your method only works with tactile sensory units and nothing else, then I can dismiss your entire line of reasoning as tailored for your position rather than a functioning method that actually works. I am demanding that you prove your method of distinguishing designed from not designed actually works, which is a challenge to your argument for tactile sensory units, because if your method only works for them, then I can dismiss it as a fluke or that you purposely ignored potential variables for the sake of an exceedingly specific example. Which means that your method would actually be invalid for tactile sensory units if it only works for tactile sensory units.
Point out the absence of elements of design in tactile sensory units. Stick with the topic of the thread.
I am stating that you haven't provided any evidence of elements of design if your method doesn't work for anything besides your specific example. If you are unwilling to show that the method you used for tactile sensory units can work with other examples, then there is no reason for me or anyone else to think your method is legitimate. I am sick of you trying to dodge this, no matter what you want, this discussion needs counter examples of other things to be verified. You cannot claim that your determination that tactile sensory units (both the hands and the actual machine) are designed is legitimate if it only works with them. And how do you prove the method is legitimate? 1 post showing it works with, say, a bike versus a tumbleweed. This is your topic, prove you care enough to support your actual argument over dodging with restraints on what we can say. This is on topic, and if you say it isn't, then you are being dishonest.
Nope, not going to take the focus from the presence of design in tactile sensory units. Discuss the topic of the thread as it relates to design.
I am not taking it away from tactile sensory units, what part of that do you not understand? I am asking you to demonstrate that your reasoning isn't tailored (and thus illegitimate) to your 1 specific example. Prove your reasoning works, 1 post, and you will support that your initial reasoning for tactile sensory units being designed will be addressed. But I refuse to address a conclusion that could very well be founded in an incorrect method, and if you won't make the effort to show that method works, why should anyone bother to refute it? You refute it by refusing to prove it actually works.
Take the observed elements of design seriously.
I will if you address my point seriously, because it attacks the foundation of your argument. I am claiming that your method for determining design is tailored to 1 example, and that it doesn't work with anything else, because you made it for a specific argument, not as an useable method that actually works. And if your method doesn't work, then you haven't provided any evidence that tactile sensory units are designed. Which means I have nothing to disprove, I can just say you are wrong and I will be in a more legitimate position than you are.