The fagellum exhibits functional coherence at such a level that design is the best and most obvious conclusion. Any explanation that does not recognise the design is simply an absurdity.
Except the only way by which we know the flagellum to exist is by natural reproduction and never by design.
To resort to complete and utter absurdities because one hasn't met the designer, while posessing prima face evidence of design is ridiculous willfull foolishness.
To assume a designer in the face of evidence to the contrary is what is foolishness. We only have the theory of evolution that both explains the diversity and processes involved, and these processes have been repeatedly observed and documented.
The appraisal of such a high level of functional coherence in even the most basic biological form provides evidence of design at a significantly higher level than the best designers we know on Earth. So it should be obvious that the designer may not be observed or observable from our vantage point.
Where is this 'designer' and why do we never see this 'designer' designing anything, rather we just see ever so slightly modified organisms being selectively filtered by their environment, leaving the more improved organisms to reproduce the next generation of slightly modified organisms to repeat this endless process. This process of Evolution adequately explains all the biodiversity we have without having to add imaginary layers of interference over and above it.
So to suggest that biological forms that clearly exhibit design at such high levels, may have come into existence by accidental invention or through some completely unknown unobserved and completely implausable process is just throwing up hands and gibbering like a monkey because we can't see how 1+1 must equal 2.
1+1 equalling 2 is verifiable, so bad analogy. All the processes that lead to the biological diversity of life we see today has been observed and is well documented. We've even been able to replicate natural selection (ironically becoming artificial selection) in the lab to produce quite a number of novel structures in a variety of lifeforms, no design needed.
Not true. We may observe design through the appraisal of functional coherence in the absence of a designer. Historical sciences do this all the time.
Because of the tell-tale tool marks and evidence of manufacturing by a designer - not because we just infer design.
Discoveries of historical objects that show evidence of design while we know nothing of the designer are common, and commonly lead us to beleive that a designer is worth looking for.
That we subsequently confirm our conclusions by discovery and observation of the people who designed only strengthens the principle.
Because of the evidence of design due to the tell-tale tool marks and manufacturing processes, not because of inference.
What enables inventions to perform so seamlessly is a property we’ll call functional coherence. It is nothing more than complete alignment of low-level functions in support of the top-level function.
so it doesn't apply to things that aren't invented things then, so we can discard that idea. Also, your pic isn't viewable - some sites don't allow third-party linking to them.
A bit of rock of a type that is not naturally found in the location it is found that has a sharp edge on one side and an attachment point for a handle on the other side.
.....so, it has tell-tale signs of manufacture and design by a designer then, probably because we've seen designers designing and manufacturing them?
This is a relatively common discovery where I come from and because there is no other reasonable conclusion the former presence of people is inferred from this sort of evidence alone.
Because there are tell-tale signs of manufacture, such as controlled chipping of the stone, shaping of diverse materials that don't come together naturally, and likely an established history of existing tribal manufacture of the same, or similar tools to the ones found there, etc.
Biological organisms and structures don't have any of that.
