A simple calculation shows why evolution is impossible

[Speedwell]

For supporters of theistic evolution it is God. So though they support ToE they believe it could not have happened without God intervening someway.

No; at least not all of them. "Theistic evolution" covers a wide range of beliefs held by theists--apart from biblical creationists, that is.

 

[Speedwell]

It has to use design as most scientists acknowledge that there is design in life. They use words that describe design like code, language, systems, programs etc. They just don't attribute this to God. Dawkins said evolution gives the appearance of design in life. But how do we know this is not really design. What walks like a duck is usually a duck. It seems silly to see something that looks designed in life such as a living cell and say it does not have all the hallmarks of design. It is like saying a sports car is not designed.
As stated earlier ID is not creationism. Creationism uses supernatural creation by God. ID uses science and does not include the supernatural or mention God. It cannot as this would contradict the scientific stand it takes.

More sophistical reasoning. Now you are creating the common logical fallacy known as "equivocation" by playing a game with two different meanings of "design." You really don't have a very high opinion of our intelligence, it appears.

 

[Kylie]

But even if the evidence for evolution is overwhelming this says nothing about whether God could have used evolution as part of his creation. Evolution is about survival of the fittest and not the arrival of the fittest.

So? I never said it was otherwise.

My point was that people invent a connection to God by saying he must use it as a tool when there's no evidence from either the real world or the Bible to support it. It's simply a case of people knowing that evolution is so well supported they can't deny it, and yet also being unwilling to accept that science disagrees with their beliefs. That's why so many people don't take a literal view of the creation account(s) in Genesis.

 

[Kylie]

If you read what I said in context then you would not need to ask for a citation. I said that scientists acknowledge design in life but don't attribute this to God. This is supported by the words they use when describing things like the cell and DNA such as machines, codes, language, systems and programs. These are all descriptions of design and are used commonly when describing design. They just don't attribute God to that design. But they cannot pretend that there are not design qualities within something like a living cell with its machine like mechanisms for example as that would be denying the obvious. When is a machine not classified as being designed. Here is support for mainstream scientists acknowledging that life is designed.
Darwin’s Greatest Discovery: Design Without Designer
Darwin’s Greatest Discovery: Design Without Designer - In the Light of Evolution - NCBI Bookshelf
There Is 'Design' In Nature, Biologist Argues
There Is 'Design' In Nature, Biologist Argues

So you make assumptions by what they mean.

You are taking what they mean to say that these scientists are saying life had some intelligent designer, and I'm asking you to support that claim.

ID is classed as a science. Whether you believe it is a science or not is not the point. Because ID regards itself as a science it cannot pursue questions about a creator God as this is a non scientific issue and therefore something that does not belong and contradicts the science. You can determine that life is designed without having to support that there is a designer. It is the same for saying that a home has been designed without being concerned about who the designer is. This is all ID is concerned about.

I'm not interested in you saying that ID is science. Anyone can insist that anything is science. I want to see you support your claims - something which you have been totally unable to do.

 

[Kylie]

My point was that even for supporters of theistic evolution there must be some signs of Gods creative influence in what we see. Otherwise we may as well drop God out of the equation. It makes sense that if God involved himself in the evolution of life then he must have incorporated some processes that are not relying on blind chance as with Darwinian evolution (natural selection acting on random mutations). So therefore we should find processes that show direction and intention that helps life change and evolve. In other words from the very beginning it was guaranteed that intelligent life that could have relationship with him was going to happen just as it has and not be subject to a risky process that could never guarantee this..

And can you show any such processes?

 

[stevevw]

Steve, I have started to have serious doubts about continuing this discussion with you. Why? Well, here is a classic example:
1. I note that Darwin did not coin the phrase "survival of the fittest"
2. You respond by asserting that Darwin did coin the phrase.
3. You then produce a link that states quite clearly (and correctly) that the phrase originated with Spencer.

i.e., not only are you wrong, but you present as evidence in support of your claim a link that proves you wrong. Do you see why I have doubts about further discussion?

All well and good, now please answer my actual question. I've added emphasis to hep you focus.

That's cute, but what - in scientific terms - do you mean by it?​

Ok I can see where I have gone wrong. I have misunderstood the word coined. I was thinking that you said Darwin did not refer or use the term survival of the fittest. Hence with the link it stated Darwin did use the term and that's why I posted it. Nothing sinister involved just a misunderstanding.

But here's the point. If I am not wrong the reason you stated that Darwin did not coin the phrase was because you were trying to disassociate Darwin from the phrase and inferring it is something Darwin and supporters of evolution would not use because it is not science. I was simply pointing out that Darwin did use this term and it is something that his contemporaries and modern day supporters of evolution use.

 

[stevevw]

But only indirectly and because we know those machines were created by humans.

yes created/designed by humans. We can measure and determine what is designed by humans. That is the criteria for design and this is the same criteria used to detect design in life. The only difference is that when we do detect it in life we say it is not really designed. yet it has the same measuring criteria. As mentioned earlier some call it design without a designer. So they are acknowledging that there is design but it is not originating from a designing agent such as God. The creative ability is given to natural selection. This is what I dispute. Even if we do not say that God is the designer I disagree that there is enough evidence to show that natural selection has the level of creative power to account for the design we see in nature like the living cell for example. So at least we should agree that life shows design and then disagree as to what caused that design.

That's the point: we don't.

OK so when we see those amazing videos of the cell with all its machinery busy plodding along producing DNA what is that called. How is that not the hallmarks of design. In all other ways when we see something like that we can say it is design but not the cell. Do you like it is similar to something designed or something else. Perhaps a chance random occurrence.

 

[Speedwell]

yes created/designed by humans. We can measure and determine what is designed by humans. That is the criteria for design and this is the same criteria used to detect design in life.

The way intentional design is detected in such objects is by observing them for evidence of intentional manufacture--tool marks, mold lines, use of non-natural or refined materials or other such things. Paley, in his watch example, called them "evidences of contrivance."

The only difference is that when we do detect it in life we say it is not really designed.

Such evidence has never been detected in living things.

yet it has the same measuring criteria. As mentioned earlier some call it design without a designer. So they are acknowledging that there is design but it is not originating from a designing agent such as God. The creative ability is given to natural selection. This is what I dispute. Even if we do not say that God is the designer I disagree that there is enough evidence to show that natural selection has the level of creative power to account for the design we see in nature like the living cell for example. So at least we should agree that life shows design and then disagree as to what caused that design.

The mistake you are making is to (intentionally?) confuse the two meanings of the word "design." On the one hand, "design" means intention or purpose. On the other it is merely descriptor for functional complexity and carries no implication of intention or purpose. But as I explained above, the presence of "design" as functional complexity is not evidence for "design" as intention or purpose.

 

[stevevw]

So you make assumptions by what they mean.

You are taking what they mean to say that these scientists are saying life had some intelligent designer, and I'm asking you to support that claim.

Language is very descriptive. It carries specific meaning by the particular words we use. if we use the wrong words we risk causing misunderstandings. So it is not my assumption as the language is quite clear. Why say something with a specific meaning only to claim that you meant something else. That does not make sense. The language used all describe design. But you are saying they may not really mean design by those words.

I'm not interested in you saying that ID is science. Anyone can insist that anything is science. I want to see you support your claims - something which you have been totally unable to do.

OK here are a couple of papers.

Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds.
“Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341:1295–1315 (2004).

A Unified Model of Complex Specified Information
A Unified Model of Complex Specified Information | Montañez | BIO-Complexity

 

[stevevw]

And can you show any such processes?

Well this is something up for debate. What I may determine as support you may say it is not and this debate could go on and on. I tend to use support from various sources such as ID, and other arguments that scientists have used such as the fine tuning argument of the living cell for example. The EES is another source as it shows processes that direct change towards specific outcomes rather than something that is blind and chance so therefore it shows purpose and something that was designed to happen that way.

Your Body's Molecular Machines
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_tYrnv_o6A
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?
Arguments why God (very probably) exists
Arguments why God (very probably) exists
Does the Fine-Tuning Argument Work?
Does the Fine-Tuning Argument Work? | HuffPost

 

[SLP]

What, for example, are the odds that the deity that you ascribe to exists?

very high actually. take a look at my signature link.

I saw exactly nothing regarding your probability calculations favoring the existence of your deity. Not only that, after perusing a few pages of your link, I found that your very premise was, how can I put this, trounced.

a new part just mean a new part. human eye for instance has many different parts (lens, retina etc) as we can see here:

(image from wiki)

Which one of those is "new" and which are "old"? The cornea, for example, is part of the sclera. Which is new/old, and how do you know?

 

[SLP]

i think that we can get a good estimation. if we are talking about 10 genes for a minimal electric oragn then we can calculate the chance of geting 10 different genes in a specific way to from the electric organ out of 3 billion bases.

More of that post hoc probability stuff that you have been shown to be a rather suspect means of employing statistics.

And on top of that, you are engaging in some odds-stacking -
As the genes in question are not "new", why are you proposing an estimate based on de novo gene production?
If you can explain and justify this deceptive practice, I will have more questions.

it seems that you changed the subject.

The subject is electric organs in different fish, is it not? You are declaring, using specious statistics and wonky 'genetics,' that evolution cannot explain it. Your standard implication is that your deity CAN explain it. So, how is my asking for your 'better' explanation changing the subject? Are you attempting to formulate an argument based on a false dichotomy?

I ask again:

Ok, so your creator god created electric organs only in some fish, in different groups of fish (again only some of them), by modifying genes involved in muscle function.
Explain how your creator did that.
Then explain how it created the muscle systems in the first place.
Then explain how this creator god came to be.

 

[pitabread]

why? if i say that one out of 10 different sequences will be functional. is it true that one out of 10 mutations in general will give us a functional sequence? its basically the same since the sequences is effected by the mutations.

They still are not at all the same thing.

Saying "1 in 10 sequences is functional" is describing a ratio. The number of mutations to achieve a functional sequence is just that: a specific number. Those two things may not be the same in all cases.

For example consider a 6-sided die. The ratio of sides that contain the number one to the total number of sides is 1 in 6.

However, the number of times it takes me to roll a one can be highly variable. I might roll a one on the first try. Or it might take me a dozen tries. There is no specific number of rolls required to roll a one.

actually there is. knock out experiments for instance show us that if we remove parts from a system (even a single part out of 30 in the case of the flagellum) we get no function at all. so a single part isnt functional by empirical experiments.

This isn't the same thing as what we are a discussing when discussing the ratio of functional to non-functional sequences though. How multi-part systems can (and do) evolve is another discussion altogether and one we've had before.

You need to account for things like multi-functional components (e.g. proteins), functional changes, functional specialization, etc. You can't just knock out a specific part and declare the whole thing non-functional.

By that argument a roman arch could never be built because removing the key stone causes the whole thing to collapse. But we know roman arches can be built via scaffolding mechanisms which are then later removed once the keystone is in place.

correct but irrelevant.

You've been trying to argue that there isn't enough time for the evolution of functional proteins but now that you know there is enough time, suddenly it's "irrelevant"?

 

[Kylie]

Language is very descriptive. It carries specific meaning by the particular words we use. if we use the wrong words we risk causing misunderstandings. So it is not my assumption as the language is quite clear. Why say something with a specific meaning only to claim that you meant something else. That does not make sense. The language used all describe design. But you are saying they may not really mean design by those words.

Unfortunately, people can use the word "designed" to mean "fine-tuned for a particular purpose." This can happen without some intelligent designer. So it seems to me that you are taking a phrase that uses this meaning of "designed" and then claiming it must be intending a different meaning of "designed", namely, having an intelligent designer responsible for it.

OK here are a couple of papers.

Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds.
“Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341:1295–1315 (2004).

A Unified Model of Complex Specified Information
A Unified Model of Complex Specified Information | Montañez | BIO-Complexity

Would you care to show me the parts of either of these papers which conclude that they could only come about by the actions of some intelligent entity who designed those systems that way?

 

[Kylie]

Well this is something up for debate. What I may determine as support you may say it is not and this debate could go on and on.

Then perhaps we should agree on some criteria, and if a piece of evidence meets those criteria, then we'll consider it valid evidence.

I tend to use support from various sources such as ID, and other arguments that scientists have used such as the fine tuning argument of the living cell for example.

Do you think that evolution is unable to produce fine-tuned cells? If so, why?

The EES is another source as it shows processes that direct change towards specific outcomes rather than something that is blind and chance so therefore it shows purpose and something that was designed to happen that way.

And would you care to explain what EES actually is? EDIT: Oh, I see, you are referencing something from one of your links. It would be nice if you actually explained what it was instead of leaving me to go looking for it.

Your Body's Molecular Machines
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_tYrnv_o6A

What part of that video shows that intelligent design is the best explanation? Or is it a case of you being unable to imagine how those things could be there without intelligent design? Argument from incredulity is a fallacy, y'know...

Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

You said that EES is driving life towards some end goal. Please show me what part of this article makes that claim.

Arguments why God (very probably) exists
Arguments why God (very probably) exists

lol

Does the Fine-Tuning Argument Work?

Does the Fine-Tuning Argument Work? | HuffPost

"The fine-tuning argument does not prove that God as the Designer of the universe exists if proof means a knock-down, drag-out, deductive proof, the conclusions of which cannot reasonably be denied. It does, nonetheless, offer evidences of God’s design. Fine tuning is consistent what we would expect from a Designer"

And what about the dinner plate fairies, who make dinner plates and put them in people's cupboards? I have evidence for them - the fact I have dinner plates in my cupboard. Now, the dinner-plate-in-the-cupboard argument does not prove that the Dinner Plate Fairies exist if proof means a knock-down, drag-out, deductive proof, the conclusions of which cannot reasonably be denied. It does, nonetheless, offer evidences of the Dinner Plate Fairies' design. Dinner plates in the cupboard are consistent what we would expect from the Dinner Plate Fairies.

Now do you see why the fine tuning argument doesn't work?

 

[pitabread]

Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds.
“Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341:1295–1315 (2004).

This paper has absolutely nothing to do with supporting Intelligent Design. At best, it's used by ID proponents/creationists to claim that functional protein evolution is too rare and therefore evolution is impossible. This is exactly what was claimed by the OP, since the entire thread is about that paper.

If Meyer didn't keep citing it everything he writes, it probably would have been forgotten about a decade ago.

I discussed it back in post #16 of this thread: A simple calculation shows why evolution is impossible

 

[stevevw]

Unfortunately, people can use the word "designed" to mean "fine-tuned for a particular purpose." This can happen without some intelligent designer. So it seems to me that you are taking a phrase that uses this meaning of "designed" and then claiming it must be intending a different meaning of "designed", namely, having an intelligent designer responsible for it.

I would have thought fine tuning is support for some intelligence controlling things so how can fine tuning happen without a designer.

Would you care to show me the parts of either of these papers which conclude that they could only come about by the actions of some intelligent entity who designed those systems that way?

These papers show how rare it is to create the level of complexity in life. The first paper is about the rarity of producing a functional protein. Though this does not verify God directly it shows that for proteins which are the building blocks of life the level of specificity is beyond probability for naturalistic processes.

The prevalence of low-level function in four such experiments indicates that roughly one in 1064 signature-consistent sequences forms a working domain. Combined with the estimated prevalence of plausible hydropathic patterns (for any fold) and of relevant folds for particular functions, this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 1077, adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences.

The second paper is along a similar line. It gives support for Dembski’s specified complexity and Behe’s irreducible complexity. This lends support to the arguments made from specified info that intelligent designers use. The paper explains and gives a mathematical explanation of what specified complexity is and this can be used to rule out naturalistic explanations about how life evolved. At the same time is shows that the info needed to create life is very rare. These two factors can help build a case for ID. As Dr. Montañez notes in the paper, meeting this requirement “is the entry fee for a probabilistic mechanism even to enter the tournament of competing explanations.”

A mathematical theory of complex specified information is introduced which unifies several prior methods of computing specified complexity. Similar to how the exponential family of probability distributions have dissimilar surface forms yet share a common underlying mathematical identity, we define a model that allows us to cast Dembski’s semiotic specified complexity, Ewert et al.’s algorithmic specified complexity, Hazen et al.’s functional information, and Behe’s irreducible complexity into a common mathematical form. Adding additional constraints, we introduce canonical specified complexity models, for which one-sided conservation bounds are given, showing that large specified complexity values are unlikely under any given continuous or discrete distribution and that canonical models can be used to form statistical hypothesis tests, by bounding tail probabilities for arbitrary distributions.

 

[stevevw]

This paper has absolutely nothing to do with supporting Intelligent Design. At best, it's used by ID proponents/creationists to claim that functional protein evolution is too rare and therefore evolution is impossible. This is exactly what was claimed by the OP, since the entire thread is about that paper.

If Meyer didn't keep citing it everything he writes, it probably would have been forgotten about a decade ago.

yet the main support in the Dover case to refute ID was based around the level of complexity in life (specified complexity). Seems to be that those who dispute ID like to pull it down by showing that evolution can evolve complex structures and therefore the same logic should be used to show it can hence the paper.
A simple calculation shows why evolution is impossible

I discussed it back in post #16 of this thread: A simple calculation shows why evolution is impossible

And Axe replied to Panda thumbs plus there has been other non religious support for his paper since. Correcting Four Misconceptions about my 2004...

 

[stevevw]

Then perhaps we should agree on some criteria, and if a piece of evidence meets those criteria, then we'll consider it valid evidence.

I think that would be another debate in itself.

Do you think that evolution is unable to produce fine-tuned cells? If so, why?

I don't think so. I have not seen any evidence for this. A blind and random process cannot produce the level of complexity seen in life such as living cells. This is supported by the papers posted in the previous post.

And would you care to explain what EES actually is? EDIT: Oh, I see, you are referencing something from one of your links. It would be nice if you actually explained what it was instead of leaving me to go looking for it.

Fair enough but from experience if I give an explanation it is shot down, so I am tending to let people find out for themselves. The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis includes a bunch of processes/mechanisms that many scientists say should be considered in how life evolves and changes. The paper I linked includes some of these such as developmental processes (including developmental bias), plasticity, niche construction, extra genetic inheritance which includes epigenetics, and genomics. These processes can direct how natural selection works or eliminate its needs altogether to enable living things to evolve new forms and traits. These changes are often well suited and integrated, so they provide what a creature needs to fit into an environment.

Creatures can also change environments, so they do have to adapt. Living things have a degree of plasticity where they can vary forms. Environment can cause/influence change through transfers of genetic info, chemicals that have effect on tissue and cells which alter phenotypes. Usually providing well suited change for what a creature needs to fit in because the environmental pressures act directly on the creature and the influence from other living creatures. Living things and ecosystems evolve together rather than in isolation as with the modern theory. These processes diminish and eliminate natural selection and give more direction and control in how life evolves thus not relying on blind chance. Rather than natural selection being the only force other forces are dictating what traits are given to selection thus controlling the direction and selection will then consolidate those changes.

If we are to support an intelligent designer, then one of the predictions would be that we should be able to find mechanisms that are more directed towards helping life to change rather then relying on blind and random chance. Part of that is showing that the level of functional specified complexity is beyond Darwinian evolution and there is not enough time to produce the type of machinery we see in living cells.

What part of that video shows that intelligent design is the best explanation? Or is it a case of you being unable to imagine how those things could be there without intelligent design? Argument from incredulity is a fallacy, y'know...

It is not an argument from incredulity. If someone is to prove that a person has been murdered in a court case, they look at the circumstantial evidence which builds their case. This is the same for support ID. Verifying a creator directly is impossible just like it is impossible for verifying a multiverse directly. So, we build a case from the evidence that points to design in life. If you listen to the video the presenter is showing how the cell has tiny machines and they act like machines. They build proteins that are based on specific language. If we were to see this type of machinery and language in any other area, we would acknowledge that this has the hallmarks of design.

You said that EES is driving life towards some end goal. Please show me what part of this article makes that claim.

I never said an end goal as in one goal. I don’t think that a goal is the right description. It is the fact that the processes highlighted by the EES give direction to evolution and often have specific outcomes that produce well suited and integrated change. As opposed to being subject to blind selection and random mutations. So, it is a directed process as opposed to a blind and random one.

The above insights derive from different fields but fit together with surprising coherence. They show that variation is not random, that there is more to inheritance than genes, and that there are multiple routes to the fit between organisms and environments. Importantly, they demonstrate that development is a direct cause of why and how adaptation and speciation occur, and of the rates and patterns of evolutionary change.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

developmental bias is also a source of adaptive variation. Developmental bias and niche construction are, in turn, recognized as evolutionary processes that can initiate and impose direction on selection.

From this standpoint, too much causal significance is afforded to genes and selection, and not enough to the developmental processes that create novel variants, contribute to heredity, generate adaptive fit, and thereby direct the course of evolution.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.2015.1019

"The fine-tuning argument does not prove that God as the Designer of the universe exists if proof means a knock-down, drag-out, deductive proof, the conclusions of which cannot reasonably be denied. It does, nonetheless, offer evidences of God’s design. Fine tuning is consistent what we would expect from a Designer"

And what about the dinner plate fairies, who make dinner plates and put them in people's cupboards? I have evidence for them - the fact I have dinner plates in my cupboard. Now, the dinner-plate-in-the-cupboard argument does not prove that the Dinner Plate Fairies exist if proof means a knock-down, drag-out, deductive proof, the conclusions of which cannot reasonably be denied. It does, nonetheless, offer evidences of the Dinner Plate Fairies' design. Dinner plates in the cupboard are consistent what we would expect from the Dinner Plate Fairies.

Now do you see why the fine tuning argument doesn't work?

Those two examples are completely different. For one we know that humans put the dinner plates in the cupboard therefore negating the dinner plate fairies straight away, end of story. Where are the many physical parameters that would be unlikely to happen together that support the dinner plates in the cupboard argument. The fine tuning has many of these highly rare conditions happening together that are recognized by many scientists. Even Stephen Hawkins supports that there is fine tuning.

“The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life”. “For example,” Hawking writes, “if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded. It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty.”

 

[Speedwell]

I think that would be another debate in itself.

I don't think so. I have not seen any evidence for this. A blind and random process cannot produce the level of complexity seen in life such as living cells. This is supported by the papers posted in the previous post.

Fair enough but from experience if I give an explanation it is shot down, so I am tending to let people find out for themselves. The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis includes a bunch of processes/mechanisms that many scientists say should be considered in how life evolves and changes. The paper I linked includes some of these such as developmental processes (including developmental bias), plasticity, niche construction, extra genetic inheritance which includes epigenetics, and genomics. These processes can direct how natural selection works or eliminate its needs altogether to enable living things to evolve new forms and traits. These changes are often well suited and integrated, so they provide what a creature needs to fit into an environment.

Creatures can also change environments, so they do have to adapt. Living things have a degree of plasticity where they can vary forms. Environment can cause/influence change through transfers of genetic info, chemicals that have effect on tissue and cells which alter phenotypes. Usually providing well suited change for what a creature needs to fit in because the environmental pressures act directly on the creature and the influence from other living creatures. Living things and ecosystems evolve together rather than in isolation as with the modern theory. These processes diminish and eliminate natural selection and give more direction and control in how life evolves thus not relying on blind chance. Rather than natural selection being the only force other forces are dictating what traits are given to selection thus controlling the direction and selection will then consolidate those changes.

If we are to support an intelligent designer, then one of the predictions would be that we should be able to find mechanisms that are more directed towards helping life to change rather then relying on blind and random chance. Part of that is showing that the level of functional specified complexity is beyond Darwinian evolution and there is not enough time to produce the type of machinery we see in living cells.

It is not an argument from incredulity. If someone is to prove that a person has been murdered in a court case, they look at the circumstantial evidence which builds their case. This is the same for support ID. Verifying a creator directly is impossible just like it is impossible for verifying a multiverse directly. So, we build a case from the evidence that points to design in life. If you listen to the video the presenter is showing how the cell has tiny machines and they act like machines. They build proteins that are based on specific language. If we were to see this type of machinery and language in any other area, we would acknowledge that this has the hallmarks of design.

I never said an end goal as in one goal. I don’t think that a goal is the right description. It is the fact that the processes highlighted by the EES give direction to evolution and often have specific outcomes that produce well suited and integrated change. As opposed to being subject to blind selection and random mutations. So, it is a directed process as opposed to a blind and random one.

The above insights derive from different fields but fit together with surprising coherence. They show that variation is not random, that there is more to inheritance than genes, and that there are multiple routes to the fit between organisms and environments. Importantly, they demonstrate that development is a direct cause of why and how adaptation and speciation occur, and of the rates and patterns of evolutionary change.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

developmental bias is also a source of adaptive variation. Developmental bias and niche construction are, in turn, recognized as evolutionary processes that can initiate and impose direction on selection.

From this standpoint, too much causal significance is afforded to genes and selection, and not enough to the developmental processes that create novel variants, contribute to heredity, generate adaptive fit, and thereby direct the course of evolution.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.2015.1019

Those two examples are completely different. For one we know that humans put the dinner plates in the cupboard therefore negating the dinner plate fairies straight away, end of story. Where are the many physical parameters that would be unlikely to happen together that support the dinner plates in the cupboard argument. The fine tuning has many of these highly rare conditions happening together that are recognized by many scientists. Even Stephen Hawkins supports that there is fine tuning.

“The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life”. “For example,” Hawking writes, “if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded. It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty.”

You've been blowing quite a bit of smoke here, but I still don't see any fire. All you've got boils down to "evolution can't work therefore ID." At some point you are going to have to come clean about what ID is. Even if we accepted your "evolution can't work" the best option on the table is still "therefore we need a better naturalistic theory." Where's the MacGuffin?