This can be accomplished by the addition of a stick - to cast a shadow - creating a sundial. We need only calibrate the directions/degrees indicated on the compass to the direction of the shadow to read the time of day.
Is that simple enough? 
4 Likes
Dan’s counter-example and refutation is yet another reminder that many intelligent design arguments are based on two logic fallacies: the Argument from Personal Incredulity and the Argument from Ignorance. (Even if one is personally unaware of step-wise processes which may bring something about, that doesn’t mean that no such processes exist.)
(For those who haven’t studied logic or read a typical undergraduate logic textbook, the Argument from Ignorance is NOT an implied insult. In this context, ignorance simply refers to a lack of knowledge. We all have ignorance about some topics, even many topics. The Argument from Ignorance is, among other things, when we make grand declarations despite a lack of important knowledge which is essential to the topic and the conclusion reached.)
3 Likes
A sundial is not analogous to systems with moving parts, biological or mechanical.
…is also not analogous to functional systems.
Whether or not some particular analogy is truly analogous depends upon the purpose of the analogy. After all, an analogy Y for phenomenon X is not a claim that X and Y are identical.
Meanwhile, @Dan_Eastwood didn’t claim that a sundial is a good analogy for biological structures. Indeed, he was simply illustrating why the compass and clock analogy for biological structures and the entire argument Scd made about the stepwise development of systems is so seriously flawed. If you read the entire exchange you will see that your beef should be with Scd, not Dan.
1 Like
What it does illustrate is that you don’t need all of the parts found in a wrist watch in order to have function as a clock. This is the same oversight that ID/creationists commit when they look at modern biological structures and assume these systems have always looked the same, have always required all of those parts for that function, or assume that the parts could never be a part of a different system with a different function.
2 Likes
That is not really the point in question. Pick any other mechanical system you desire.
A pile of dirt has many function. Why don’t you think so?
2 Likes
There are no “mechanical” systems in the cell, so why would it matter?
1 Like
I don’t think it is a mechanical system?
The claim is that all of the proteins found in the modern bacterial flagellum had to appear all at once in order for there to be a functioning system. Do you disagree?
1 Like
There are ‘mechanical’ kinetic sculptures using ATP, enzymes, etc. to engender conformational changes.
Non mechanical systems can have functions, for example biological systems can have functions such as the many biological systems in the bacteria of said dirt.
That is not in question.
You apparently think there are no functions in dirt. Perhaps you’ve never gardened. Nor perhaps have you done any landscaping.
1 Like
In the same way, the mechanical movement of tectonic plates sculpts the geology of the Earth. All of this formed and proceeds through natural processes.
Nor is that in question. You digress.
Tectonics is not analogous to machines.
Yes it is in question. I believe dirt has functions.
1 Like
I believe dirt has functions, as does a pile of sugar or flour. None are analogous to a functioning machine with moving parts.