Because of its properties.
It's made from plastics and other non-naturally occuring materials.
It has inscriptions on it like numbers, codes and "made it china".
It has brand markings.
It shows signs of manufacturing like soldering.
Everything about it pretty much screams "human made".
Not all designed objects are made from non-naturally occurring materials. Nor do they all have an inscription, or brand markings.
You left out the most important part: custom way.
Indicated it was manufactored / forged by some agent, as opposed to formed / evolved through, or under the influence of, the laws of nature.
Not sure what you are talking about here.
That doesn't matter.
A non-working one would bear all the same marks of manufacturing / custom processing.
Heck, an abstract sculpture that serves no purpose other then to stand in a corner as decoration, would still bear marks of manufacturing, like carving.
The purpose/function of an object is of no importance when the goal is determining if it is custom made or naturally formed.
Sure, that is the case for such components.
It is not the case for an abstract art sculpture.
It has no relevancy to it being designed or not.
Yes...
Patterns and processes that emerge as a direct result of the laws of nature affecting matter.
Yes, but has nothing to do with design. Otherwise you may wand to produce a reference or two.
Let's just make it a billion trillion and go with that.
Why? It is nothing like it.
I agree up until "in a systematic way". The rest can't be deduced from the mere observation of the structure. And that "rest", eventhough you mentioned multiple things, is really just one thing: pre-planned intention.
How did you concluded that it was intentionally put together?
You are infusion agency into it without any reason, without any evidence.
It is no more then an assumed conclusion.
I would suggest that perhaps we are both assuming, but I am using evidence in the same way you claim to be.
There is a goal that involves functionality of the connected parts... without which, the entire system breaks down.
What system are you proposing, that has that goal - natural selection? How so?
Natural selection is not goal oriented.
The requirements are evidently according to plan. They have a specific purpose.
This gives evidence of design... An intelligent agent that utilized the plan towards the goal.
This is what we know personally from experience, and observe.
Having said that, the question you ask, is not how one distinguishes natural objects from manufactured / designed ones.
You can't exactly "unplug" a brain.
A brain isn't "plugged in".
Your argument from awe, that you reinforce with an equivocation fallacy and an assumed conclusion, is noted.
It isn't evidence of anything, except perhaps that much still remains to be learned about the brain.
You have given exactly 0 evidence for the idea of brains being designed / manufactured with intent by an external agent.
Natural design does not require a "designer". Natural designs are produced by natural processes, governed by the laws of nature..
You have yet to explain natural design.
We are talking about the brain, not color, or size. or antics.
I have no problem with adaptation, being an observable fact. However, if you are saying the brain is a natural design, you need to explain what that means, and how it happened.
As far as I know, you are making unconfirmed assumptions.
You have given not evidence at all.
Describing how a brain works and saying "we don't know how this or that works" 50 times, doesn't constitute evidence for an external agent that designs brains with intention. You haven't even begun to address the origins of brains. All you did was cite a few factoids while falsely equivocating it to a human made product while completely ignoring the MANY ways in which they are different. While it is exactly those differences that make one a custom object and the other a natural one.
The OP asked for evidence for God. This is just one evidences, as we know that design requires a designer, and we also know there is cause and effect.
Natural selection is not goal oriented.
The design of the connections in the brain are all intended toward a specific goal.
1. we know from the fossil record that brain sizes in a lineage vary over time. The brain size of the human lineage has nearly trippled over the past 7 million years
Yes, they / you assume that.
When one has to assume, and cannot determine if an assumption is true,with any accuracy, it remains an assumption.
This can be visualized with current data on hominin evolution, starting with Australopithecus — a group of hominins from which humans are likely descended.
What you are accusing me of is actually what you are doing.
The honest scientists does not speak of these thing with suck cocksuredness.
2. we have extant examples from extremely rudimentary brains all the way up to large complex ones
Another assumption. We have what? Nothing/
3. we know that brain building is determined and regulated through genetics, pretty much like all the other parts of our body
Brain building? Sound like something unscientific. I wonder where you got that idea from, other than your head.
Evolution of the brain - Wikipedia
The principles that govern the evolution of brain structure are not well understood....
One approach to understanding overall brain evolution is to use a paleoarchaeological timeline to trace the necessity for ever increasing complexity in structures that allow for chemical and electrical signaling. Because brains and other soft tissues do not fossilize as readily as mineralized tissues, scientists often look to other structures as evidence in the fossil record to get an understanding of brain evolution. This, however, leads to a dilemma as the emergence of organisms with more complex nervous systems with protective bone or other protective tissues that can then readily fossilize occur in the fossil record before evidence for chemical and electrical signaling. Recent evidence has shown that the ability to transmit electrical and chemical signals existed even before more complex multicellular lifeforms.
Fossilization of brain, or other soft tissue, is possible however, and scientists can infer that the first brain structure appeared at least 521 million years ago, with fossil brain tissue present in sites of exceptional preservation.
Another approach to understanding brain evolution is to look at extant organisms that do not possess complex nervous systems, comparing anatomical features that allow for chemical or electrical messaging.
Seem like we have been here before.
I'm not going through your ignoring posts again though.
4. we know of specific mutations that induce changes in brain size.
Yes. Disorders that are not good news for the large headed carrier.
Study Finds New Gene Mutations that Lead to Enlarged Brain Size, Cancer, Autism, Epilepsy
Was a gene mutation responsible for bigger human brains?
5. the brain bears no signs of manufacturing
Opinion noted.
All the evidence points to brains being a natural occurrence.
Based on assumptions yes. Science, no.
Evolution of neuronal types and families
Major questions in the evolution of neurons and nervous systems remain unsolved, such as the origin of the first neuron, the possible convergent evolution of neuronal phenotypes, and the transition from a relatively simple decentralized nerve net to the complex, centralized nervous systems found in modern bilaterian animals.
