Detecting design or intent in nature

[Heywood]

And it is not evolution because you say it is not? Look if we are to have this discussion we have to agree what is evolution and what isn't. Once we agree on that we can look at something and if it agrees with our definition of evolution then it is an example of evolution.

This is the definition of evolution I presented. Do you find it unreasonable? Nobody seemed to object to it.

I would define evolution as follows:

Evolution is a process whereby changes in the heritable traits which reside in a given population accumulate through a selection mechanism over successive generations. The accumulation of these changes can result in an increase or decrease in one or more of the following: complexity, diversity, and knowledge.

Key attributes of evolution:
replication
heritable traits
change
selection

Computers don't have heritable traits because they don't reproduce. Variables in a computer program are not "a population". Hardware doesn't accumulate changes; it occupies differing states.

That you can't see the difference between a program which models evolution and a system that actually evolves just means you've thrown a spanner.

Replication is required for evolution, not necessarily reproduction. Within the spider sim is a set of variables which is what evolves.....not the computer. This set of variables is the population. In the spider sim it happens to be a population of one. This set of variables is passed on from one cycle of the process to the next or replicated. The variables contained within the set are the heritable traits. A random number generator changes the value of one or more these variables in the set at the beginning of the next cycle. If the change improves the performance of the set of variables the change is kept. If the change makes the performance of the set of variable worse, it is discarded.

The process of evolution found this solution for Megaman to defeat Airman. It did it by playing games over and over again(replication). The strategy was passed down from one game to next(heritiable traits). Small random changes were made in that strategy with each game(change). If the change resulted in a higher score it was kept, if it didn't it was discarded(selection).

---

On top of everything else, these models of evolutionary systems are models of biological evolution, or simulations inspired by biological evolution. So whether these systems have their ultimate genesis in a system which was designed depends on whether biological evolution is designed or not. To borrow a page from the creationists, if these simulations are actually evolution, then they are derived evolution and not real evolution because their principles of operation are stolen from the original biological system. Derived evolution is not real evolution.

5 examples of evolutionary systems were given in this thread......some of which were not intentionally created to simulate biological evolution. The evolution of cars for instance.

---

So in closing, the conduction of the Miller-Urey experiment and its more advanced, diverse, and extensive successor experiments have demonstrated that evolution can indeed come about without intelligence via simulations, which you yourself have admitted are quite acceptable.

Quick note: In case you are not aware, amino acids are the most basic forms of organic material. RNA to DNA = the earliest stages of the process of biological evolution!

Where do I collect my prize?

The Miller-Urey experiment and its extensive successor experiments never resulted in the process of evolution getting "kicked started".

Good try, but this observation fails to support proposition 2.