RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
February 2, 2015 at 3:02 am
(This post was last modified: February 2, 2015 at 3:10 am by Heywood.)
(February 1, 2015 at 2:25 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:(January 31, 2015 at 4:47 pm)Chas Wrote: Your arguments show that you do not understand biological evolution.
You misunderstand it at its very core.
It is not a system.
It is the inevitable outcome of imperfect replication of replicators.
It needs no implementation.
Your argument is bollocks.
I made this point many many pages ago to have it ignored.
It most certainly is a system. A system is a set of connected things or parts forming a more complex whole. Evolution is a process that is actually a set of connected sub-processes. Replication is a distinct process, change is a distinct process, and selection is a distinct process. On top of that, those connected processes have to operate on something. When you have those distinct but connected processes operating on something, you have a system. There is nothing wrong with calling the process of evolution(which is really a bunch of connected processes forming a more complex process) operating on things an evolutionary system.
To claim evolution is not a system is absolutely moronic. Some of the "facts" and "counter arguments" given so far are so retarded it makes me wonder if the people who put them out there have to wear helmets on their heads and put corks on the end of their forks.
Rasetsu is about the only one who has come up with half way decent counter argument. I will have a response to her last post soon.
