Detecting design or intent in nature

[The Grand Nudger]

How am I playing fast and loose? Are you saying cars being replicated on an assembly line is not replication?

It's manufacturing.

Are you saying that even though the form of this years cars is largely inherited from last years cars...that's not heritability?

It is neither inherited nor heritable. It's a design change, or it;s simply part of the same process from last year as part of shared comps.

Are you saying small tweaks to the design every year isn't really change?

Sure, that's change, what isn't? Stasis isn't something we see much representation of on this rock regardless of the subject.

Are you saying when you go to a car lot, you don't select the car you're going to purchase?

It's not selection in the sense of evolution. I select coffee in the morning, I could probably tell you all about the evolutionary system of my morning joe.

Claiming I am playing "fast and loose" with those terms is simply hand waving away a point you are incapable of refuting.

You missed the refutation, oh, my bad, that was the first time I responded by stating that you were equivocating - which you are and continue to do. Another way of saying "equivocate" is "playing fast and loose with words". Understand?

Sorry but I don't accept your weaseling out counter argument(if you can even call it that).

No counterargument has been provided, and none is required. Understand? I'm trying to help you l2logic. The claim itself is uninteresting to me at this point. Trying to find a way to phrase it that is valid and sound is far more interesting, we might get to a "some evolutionary systems might require design" conclusion. At which point I'll probably say something along the lines of "No shit". I'm holding your hand till we arrive. That, and I like to give you opportunity to keep making batshit and/or self refuting claims. That's what makes your end of the AF world go 'round, after all.