Detecting design or intent in nature

[Heywood]

It is identical for all practical purposes. I said "almost" because the biological system observed to come into existence requiring intellect contains watermarks in its DNA. Set X includes at least one example where replication is achieved via reproduction so all your intellectual somersaults fail.

No, it is not "identical for all practical purposes".

Set E contains only replicating replicators. Set X and set E are disjoint sets. Nothing proved about set X can just be applied to set E.

Both Set X and E contain the evolutionary system created by Craig Venter. Disjoint sets contain no common elements and since set X and E contain a common element, they cannot be considered disjoint.

What you are really trying to do is justify your special pleading and you have yet to come up with a reason that stands up to even cursory scrutiny.

---

Okay Heywood, look at the pretty diagram on the left. Note that no matter HOW MANY cats you observe chasing mice, this does NOT serve as evidence that other mammals like chasing mice.

Now look at the exactly identical logic on the right. Note that no matter HOW MANY man-made evolutionary systems you can find, this does NOT serve as evidence that other evolutionary systems are made by intellect.

You are assuming the other animals are not cats. You have no reason to make that assumption other than it is your conclusion. Do you see what fallacy you are committing?

Also I would like you to take your argument to a physics convention but just frame it this way instead

Points of space where permittivity has been measured is constant. Points of space where permittivity has not been measured......may or may not be constant.

You'd be a laughingstock.