Natural reproduction does not provide explanation for origin. We are discussing origin here. Evolution and development after an origin of a reproductive organism is another thing altogether.
Well, the earliest fossilised examples of microbes don't have flagella. As for unique structures emerging, there are a number of plausible paths as demonstrated, especially from the Type II Secretory system of the bacterium that caused the Bubonic Plague. These are natural processes we know occur that don't have an intelligent designer.
I agree, however: Biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose. Richard Dawkins
Design and purpose is evident in biology so an honest student will follow the evidence where it leads.
"
Appearance of design", because we know of and have in fact observed the natural process that causes this phenomena, and it isn't an intelligent designer - it is Evolution by natural selection! We've observed it to no end, we've documented many, many ways in which it happens and we've never been able to falsify it. Why don't you ask these Biologists why they don't believe in any Intelligent Designer....after all, they are absolutely qualified, and have followed the evidence to its inevitable conclusion, right? Of all people you could ask, surely they'd be in the know?
Darwins molecular fiddler provides one explantation for development but can never provide explanation for origin, and does not invent anything new.
There is no plausible explanation for biogenesis except for the explanation that recognises the design and purpose evident.
That's presumptuous to say a natural explanation will never be known - you might be right but even if you are right and we'll never have a verified explanation, that's still not confirmation that it didn't happen naturally.
The language of biology and the engineering developments that we have copied from biology is sprinkled unavoidsbly with design language. Clearly the phenomina is evident and we see what the Designer has designed.
The process of Evolution gives rise to this phenomenon. If you understood it, you'd know this.
Do you deny that the Model T Ford was designed? I do not see Henry Ford tinkering with it today, are you going to suggest that the designer is not evident?
We have a wide variety of verifiable documents, photography and
Conversely the only evidence we have of mutation leading to change at a rate that is even remotely close to that required for tje diversity we observe, causes terrible conditions and disease a death.
Actual beneficial mutation at the molecular level is extremely rare.
So why has a supposed natural process taken a holiday?
It hasn't and is still in full effect - nothing has changed with respect to evolution, and it's all working as it has all along just fine. Why do you say all that when it's not what we observe? What's your reference?
The documentation is all classification (and very shaky classification at that). The only actual observations of beneficial molecular evolution that we have occuring in the natural environment can be counted on the fingers of one hand and are occuring at a rate that is far to slow to supply a plausible explanation for the phenomina.
Well, none of that correlates with the actual data, so what's your reference for it?
LOL. The elephant in the room of course is the designer of the experiment.
I suppose that you will try to tell me that your post was not designed either.
My post sure is designed, no problem there. You're right, even the environment for the experiments are designed too, but the evolutionary reaction to the intelligently designed environment (i.e. the topic of study) is completely natural. Literally the only thing designed is the environment, and that's so we can study how evolution reacts to such conditions and changes in nature. I understand you don't like that we make these observations that continue to affirm the Theory of Evolution, but perhaps you could accept the evidence since it is reality after all, plenty of other religious folk of all stripes (not just Christianity) can do it, so you can too.
No tools suitable for the job have been found in the location. The inference you are making is one from design. You asdume that certain marks reveal purpose and itelligent activity and therefore invoke tools and a tool user to explain this.
Well, we can indeed find out if they were made or naturally occur, and archaeologists do it all the time. Point to note though, we do sometimes have trouble working out whether a tool was made by a fellow human, or earlier hominid species that came before us. there's often debate about that in the scientific community, so it isn't as clear-cut as you'd like to think it is. Nobody that works in the field just "infers" design, so you're mistaken on that point.
It is a mathematical tool for determining whether accidental invention is plausable as an explanation.
Perhaps post the link, because I still can't see it and your description isn't helping. A reference on its use would also be helpful too.
In all of our experience the appearance of design and purpose is only explained by one cause, that is a designer.
No, it just isn't. Evolution (as mentioned innumerable times by people working in this field) creates the illusion of design without any intelligence involved - we've seen it happen in real time both in the lab and in the field. You're just wrong.
To be expected to suspend this inference for the sake of a few fools that wish to deny the presence of design in biology is absurdity in the extreme.
Show me the Designer then. We have demonstrable evidence that Evolution does it already, so your evidence of a "designer" will have to be just as convincing as the evidence we already have in spades for Evolution.
To be consistant with your previous assertion, in the absence of any corroborating evidence, such as a person still engaged doing these things, one would be better off putting supposed tool marks and dislocation from where rocks like that are commonly found down to natural physical laws, perhaps that have yet to be discovered. Surely you should be telling me to have faith in Science to find an alternative explanation and not jump to conclusions of intelligent interference where there is no evidence. After all funny shaped rocks are found in strange places all over the world, and we have even designed an experiment that produces these sorts of marks on rocks without any design at all.
No, because we literally have the evidence of a designer designing these tools, even if we haven't seen the specific designer for this specific designed thing, we have a well-established history of these things being designed and relocated accordingly. Nothing like that for naturally occurring organisms.
I'm sorry you don't like that your idea isn't just accepted by people exercising critical thinking and the scientific method, but this is how science is done, and it is literally the best way we have to get to the most probable truth of a thing. No other method has proven as successful.
On the contrare, they are chocker with it. Even the most outspoken opposition to Creationism admits it.
...that it looks like design, but isn't? Sure. Doesn't mean it IS designed by an intelligent designer because as mentioned ad-nauseum, we have well-established evidence of Evolution doing this. No evidence of a designer even being involved, let alone evidence of said designer designing anything...
