RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 27, 2015 at 8:37 pm
(This post was last modified: January 27, 2015 at 8:38 pm by Chas.)
(January 27, 2015 at 3:05 pm)Heywood Wrote:(January 27, 2015 at 8:20 am)Chas Wrote: I have not said that.
However, your whole thesis is about demonstrating that biological evolution requires intellect. If your 'evolution' examples aren't isomorphic to biological evolution, your argument becomes trivial and uninteresting.
The examples and biological evolution are isomorphic because they all satisfy the same definition. The definition is reasonable and it isn't specific to evolutionary systems which required intellect.
Your argument that replication has to be self-reproduction is hallow and just an attempt to sneak in a new definition of evolution through the back door. You do this so that you can then claim the examples are not isomorphic with biological evolution.
Your definition of evolution is incomplete; I am not sneaking anything in, just correcting you.
To be isomorphic with biological evolution, replication of replicators is required. Do you not understand isomorphism? Apparently not.
Quote:You're straw manning.
You are so full of shit. You don't even understand what constitutes a straw man.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
Science is not a subject, but a method.