Can someone debunk this

[Odoital77]

Khemikal Wrote: Nonsense.  Purpose and design aren't excluded a priori by modern synth.  Artificial selection is a thing.  If you want to insist that some, most, or all evolution is brought about by artificial selection then you could clearly do so within the framework of evolutionary biology.  OFC, you'd actually have to show that this were the case, and it might help if you could demonstrate the intelligence and purpose behind the artificial selection in the first place.

Good luck.

 
Of course purpose and design are excluded a priori.  Most science, particularly when it comes to evolutionary science is done within the context of naturalism, which entails that only naturalistic explanations are entertained as possibilities.
 
Purpose (noun): the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.
 
Purpose (verb): have as one's intention or objective.
 
Design (noun): 1. a plan or drawing produced to show the look and function or workings of a building, garment, or other object before it is built or made.
 
Design (noun): 2. purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is thought to exist behind an action, fact, or material object.
 
Design (verb): decide upon the look and functioning of (a building, garment, or other object), typically by making a detailed drawing of it.
 
 
Reason…  Intention…  Plan[ing]…  Decision(s)…  are all the product of mind and intelligence, not mere matter.  They do not and cannot, by the nature of the philosophical underpinnings that undergird the enterprise (i.e. evolutionary science), be included.  It’s the very reason Richard Dawkins has been quoted ad nauseum ad infinitum saying or writing the following:

Dawkins Wrote: … The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. … – River out of Eden (1995)

Dawkins Wrote: … Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind’s eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker. … – The Blind Watchmaker (1986)

 
 
And we need not be limited to “artificial selection”, as if we’re merely talking about breeding dogs.  It is possible to recognize the marks of mind or intelligence through the detection of design and purpose itself.  Or one could look at the origin of intelligible information itself.  Do we have examples of intelligible information in the form of language or code that can be shown rather than assumed to originate from non-mind or non-intelligence?  What about the applicability of mathematics to the physical world?  After all, mathematics wasn’t invented by mankind.  Rather it was discovered, as something that already existed, irrespective of our awareness of it.  And now we’re able to use that very discovery to predict the existence of other things that cannot be detected without great effort.  Again, better explained by non-mind and non-intelligence?  Credulity is stretched beyond the breaking point if the answer is actually “Yes!”

This is merely inference to the best explanation, nothing more.

---

No, I've seen the obvious, and that was specifically what my commentary was about. 

No your comment was about your flawed belief you had seen the obvious .  

 You're the evidence for the very thing I was speaking about.

My comment was about your flawed believe you had seen the obvious?  Glad we agree.

Again, I have seen the obvious, and you're the proof.