Those things are evidence that biology is interesting. They are not evidence of design.
No, that’s not quite right. It is true that all gears cast, cut or stamped from metals or plastics, or carved from wood or similar materials, of which we know are the result of manufacture by humans, and we know that manufacture by humans is ordinarily preceded by design by humans. But gear-like teeth on an organism are never manufactured by humans. (By the way, these are often mischaracterized, hilariously, by people alleging design. I think that Behe actually says how many times they rotate per second. They don’t actually rotate, because they are not round and continuous but are merely two nubby surfaces which rub against one another for a short distance and then stop.)
So if by “gears” you mean actual “gear” gears, yes, all of those we know of are manufactured by humans. That wouldn’t even demonstrate that if we found such things in nature they were designed, but one would obviously have to figure out whether there was some natural process that generated them.
But if by “gears” you mean “nubs on the legs of planthoppers that help keep their legs moving at the same rate when they jump,” there’s simply no reason to think that those are designed. They are certainly not analogous, in any but an extremely naïve sense, to human-manufactured gears. They grow. As I have said, one surface rubbing on another is very common in biology. Once you have that, modifications to the texture of those surfaces is easy. Modifications to the shape of body parts such as the generation of a nub on a surface are easy.
So the gears are wonderful, interesting, and all of that. But evidence of design? No. And none of those who discovered them think they are, either.
Not really. We actually understand a great deal now about how slight modifications to organismal development can generate such things as bumps on a leg. You probably already know that the notion that evolution is “just a theory” rests upon a misconception of what the word “theory” means in this context – but here we are not even talking about evolution broadly: we are talking about whether things like nubs can arise by slight modification to developmental regulatory genes. That sort of thing is absolutely settled against you.
On the flagellum: really? Do you have any idea why this is not convincing to any biologist other than Behe? Do you understand that the Golden Oldies of creationism are not likely to find a fresh audience in anyone who has read about these things? There is plenty of literature on it, and I do not have the time to recap it for you. You probably just need to use Google, read some actual scientists for a change, and begin to take this in.
There is nothing like familiarity with evolutionary theory and the diversity of life to dispel creationist notions. You really need to pursue that. For example, when I asked you about the faunal succession, and where the unbridgeable gap from Pikaia to Panther is, you said “all of them.” A plainer indication that you have no idea what creatures are IN that faunal succession could hardly be asked for. And you indicated that you thought that “every one of them probably has a unique biological system that other dont have.”
That “probably” is a bit of a tell, and the fact is that once the chordates get going, “unique biological systems” do arise, but far, far less often than you might think. One of the best bits of evidence for common descent is that groups like the chordates share an immense amount of genetic material, and that novelty often appears in the form of changes to gene regulation – creatures having the same parts, but differently grown. So, if you look into it you’re going to find that novel “biological systems” do occur between Pikaia and Panther, but that they are fewer in number than you think and that most creatures do NOT have a “unique biological system.”
That’s okay. It’s understandable that the superficial characteristics of creatures make them seem more different than the underlying biology does. But when you are making a claim about biological science, and proposing to throw out the dominant paradigm, you’re not going to be able to do it without first mastering the subject matter. Analogies between manufactured gears and non-manufactured gears will do you absolutely no good.