Detecting design or intent in nature

[Chas]

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.

You are so full of shit. You don't even understand what constitutes a straw man.

There is nothing wrong with my definition of evolution. It is perfectly reasonable. I have corrected you on this many times. Perhaps you are just too thick headed to understand evolution.

Regarding your strawmanning the facts are this:
1. You are trying to narrow the definition of evolution being used in the argument I have made.
2. After narrowing the definition of evolution you then claim the observations presented don't satisfy the definition so the conclusion is wrong.
3. You are committing a straw man because you are attacking an argument I did not make. I made an argument using one definition of evolution, you are attacking an argument using a different definition for evolution.

If you admit that if my definition of evolution were true, then my argument would be valid....I would accept that you are merely challenging the definition that I am using and that you are not making a straw man argument. Will you concede that if my definition were true there is nothing wrong with my argument?

I am not creating a straw man of your argument, I am pointing out that your thesis is utterly flawed.

Neither your definition nor your examples are isomorphic to biological evolution.
Therefore, your arguments do not apply to biological evolution.