Detecting design or intent in nature

[Chas]

You're the one switching definitions and claiming that we can call anything we like 'evolution'. To continue this discussion we have to agree on one definition of the word. Everyone but you agrees on the one used in the English language, you want your own. This is going nowhere. Whatever claim you're trying to support, you can't do that with a made-up definition of the word.

There is nothing wrong with my definition of evolution. You guys reject it because you think somehow that refutes my argument. Are you denying that biological evolution contains the elements of replication, heritable traits, change and selection? If you are then you don't really understand biological evolution.

Your definition does not include replication of replicators, so it is not a definition of biological evolution.

When you understand that, you will be closer to understanding biological evolution. If you reject it, you are being dishonest.

---

Let's define god as a red truck in my garage.
There's no red truck in my garage.
Therefore, there is no god.

For this discussion I accept your definition of god. If I present an observation of a red truck in your garage then I have proof of god's existence.

Do you agree or are you going to play games and switch definitions on me like Chas keeps trying to do?

Switching? No, correcting your inaccurate definition.

Stop being such a dishonest twat.

---

I am not strawmanning as I am responding to your thesis which is flawed by your poor definition and understanding of biological evolution.

Your thesis as stated in your first post in this thread is that biological evolution requires intellect because all of the things you call evolution require intellect.

So, since you are not talking about something that adheres to the definition of biological evolution, what you are doing says nothing about biological evolution.

So what is your point?

Your definition, that "evolution is the imperfect replication of replicators" fails to adequately describe memetic evolution. Memes don't replicate themselves. Minds replicate memes. You are straw manning because your attacking my argument as if I was only talking about biological evolution when it is clear that I am talking about much more than just biological evolution.

Your fantasy, that there is only biological evolution, is just that....a fantasy. It is not refutation of the argument I have made.

I have never said there is only biological evolution, and it is either dishonesty or stupidity on your part to say that.

Your thesis is that these things you call evolution are created be intellect so biological evolution must be (as stated in your first post in this thread) is not supported because your examples do not encapsulate the core of biological evolution.