so since fruit has an apparent function meant to serve humanity (feeding). or any organ actually (eyes to make animal able to see). then they are also evidence for design? on the other hand we also have designed objects that its seems to be non functional by itself (like a paint). so a paint isnt evidence for design too?
No - all of these examples are flawed. Although we do eat fruit, it did not evolve to be eaten. Most fruits evolved as a mechanism of reproduction, of holding and dispersing seeds. Although humans and other animals can eat fruits, that is usually a mechanism of their evolution and not the other way around. Organs are not organisms; they don't reproduce on their own, and they are part of an organism, so the 'evolution' of an organ is representative of the evolution of the organism they are part of. Paint, on the other hand, is a tool, made for a specific function (to paint). I don't understand how you can say it seems to be non-functional.
why its so unlikely to evolve by natural selection? if a watch can evolve by natural selection why not a watch with english notations? i see no real difference. its even possible that human will use such a watch because he like these notations that evolved by mutations so he will take this kind of watch and keep it.
Again, as I said originally, the context behind how the organism developed is important, and makes all the difference. If we know it was built in a factory, design is evident. If we have evidence that humans interacted with the organism in a way to influence its evolution in such a way that you describe, that is evidence towards selection - but there is debate over whether or not such selection is "natural" or not. Does that qualify as design? For example, the domestic dog has evolved from wild canids, but under selection heavily influenced by human breeders. Does that mean that we created dogs? It depends on your perspective, and your definitions. Regardless, domestic dogs would not have evolved as they are today without human intervention.
The context is critical, and you keep changing the context. Did we just find it on Mars, or have we been cultivating this wild organic watch's genetics through selective breeding? Regardless, it's a scenario that really doesn't give us much useful information in what we're looking at.
beside what i said above to how a watch can evolve naturally, lets say that you are right about this specific watch. what about a walking robot (human)? also note that we dont know if there was a function in any step during the flagellum evolution. so what you said about a watch we can say about flalgellum too. scientists only have theories to how the flagellum evolve. they cant prove them. so i can also have a theory how a watch can evolve. so again i see no real difference between a flagellum and a watch evolution.
That you can't see the difference between a necessary function of life (movement) and a tool for human use (watch) doesn't mean there is no difference.
You're also using "theory" inconsistently. Your theories are all hypotheticals, based off of ideas that can't be proven wrong but have no empirical evidence, versus theories well-accepted by the scientific community with heaps of peer-reviewed data and evidence supporting them.
but some steps to echolocation will need at least several parts to be functional. for instance hearing isnt a simple function. its like a special sensor that can detect sound waves. we know that such a sensor will need at least several parts. we cant made such a sensor by a single part.
I challenge your statement that hearing isn't a simple function, and I challenge its relevance. What do you mean by "simple"? Sound waves and vibrations provide valuable information, just like light waves. The ability to interpret such things is usually beneficial to organisms that can use them to find food, mates, shelter, etc, and organisms with those abilities live to pass those genetics on. That might start with a rudimentary tympanic membrane, and evolve into something that resembles the human ear over time with small adjustments. Just because devices that we have created require 'several parts' to successfully interpret sound doesn't mean that it's impossible for a living organism to evolve something that does the same thing.
Upvote
0