Detecting design or intent in nature

[Chas]

The answer to your "proposition 2" about one observable case has been demonstrated over and over again. You keep saying "that doesn't count." You say you refuted it when Stimbo presented it. I did not see it, though I looked through many of your posts (I hope you appreciate the effort I had to put in to wade through over 60 pages of posts to do this) to see if you indeed had.

Maybe I missed it (plausible), but all the same, the only refutations of anything I found were refutations that essentially amounted to a response that is "nuh uh!" If you would repeat it for me, it might help me register the point. May be a rough thing to do, but, again, I DID go through 60 pages of posts to try to locate it myself.

We have no observations of the implementation of the evolutionary system which produced Stimbo. Remember we are considering these two very reasonable propositions....both of which cannot be true:

Proposition 1: All evolutionary systems require intellect to be implemented.
Proposition 2: Not all evolutionary systems require intellect to be implemented.

Maybe if you consider these two proposition instead it will help you see why Stimbo's observation fails to falsify propostion 1.
Proposition Alpha: All running internal combustion engines required a starter.
Proposition Beta: All running internal combustion engines did not require a starter.

You don't falsify proposition Alpha by providing an observation of a running internal combustion engine. You only falsify proposition Alpha by providing an observation of an internal combustion engine spontaneously beginning to run without the help of starter.

There is nothing to be implemented. Evolution occurs due to the conditions already stated.

Please describe precisely what it is that must be implemented.

You can't, because your thesis is silly and your demand for 'implementation' utterly fallacious.