Detecting design or intent in nature

[Heywood]

I agree that to observe requires an intellect.

Another sourceless claim without proof or evidence.

I guess if one cannot beat them, join them.

I assert that the original intellect and observer is a pink unicorn. I know this to be absolutely true because I have faith that it is true, so I must be right according to your logic.

Strawman much?

Anyways the reason I agree that to observe requires an intellect is that every-time I have come across an observation, I have found it was made by an intellect. I have never come across an observation that was made by something that did not have an intellect.

---

You either cut it loose, or you have an example of an evolutionary system which does not require intellect, by definition. The implementation was designed, sure, procedural generation is not. The procedure followed by a procedural gen has no requirement of intellect either. It only needs to exist. A random number generator can decide the procedure (or even a wide range of procedures) - and often does. Procedural generation is a function of a universe in which logic is possible and interaction occurs, there is no requirement of intellect - and no specific implementation is required to achieve it (which is why we can make them out of almost anything, string, analog gates, digital circuits....rolls of toilet paper), but also why they are so prevalent in nature with no finesse required on our own part (river systems, stalagtites and stalagmites, snowflakes etc).

That's what you asked for, that's what you got. Don't bitch and moan about a "single example", and then balk when you get it; unless you're determined to make a liar of yourself, again.

River systems, stalagtites and stalagmites, snowflakes....none of these are evolutionary systems.

These examples all fail.