and if we can detect design by looking at such organic structures, why we cant conclude the same by looking at much more complex sturcutres such as the kinesin or the ATP synthase?:
Yes, design is the best explanation – of origami. But that does not tell you anything about biology.
If you were to study origami, you would probably notice that the origami designs evolved. That’s the effect of feedback and being responsive to feedback. And biological evolution is, itself, a system of feedback and responsiveness to feedback.
Quasar – from motor-hole-a. Yes, I fear we might. Who needs evidence, when there are so many available bad analogies? Or, as a wise man once said, “with this much sh**, there’s got to be a pony in here somewhere!”
The point is: your argument is one which was crafted (not by you, perhaps) to deceive. Such arguments arise by design: by an intention, on the part of the argument’s original author, to mislead.
No, I’m not talking about watches. You’ve already shown that you don’t understand the issue there and I think there’s little point in my joining the heroic effort to help you. I’m talking about design arguments: they are themselves designed to deceive. They appear to work quite well sometimes on some people.
There are no self replicating watches. If there were, then we would have to ask how they arose. But there aren’t. Watches, of all known types, are the products of human manufacture. The hypothetical existence of self-replicating watches is just about the silliest rabbit hole anyone has asked me to crawl down this week.
