Detecting design or intent in nature

[Heywood]

It does not show man creates " biological evolutionary systems". It shows we can create partially synthetic species of bacteria that is capable of replicating and that's all it shows, we didn't create a new system of evolution.

It does show that man creates biological evolutionary systems if we accept Chas' definition of evolution for the reasons I have given. However If we accept my definition then you could argue it does not. Under my definition reproduction isn't necessary for evolution, only replication. You could argue that Venter, in creating Mycoplasma Laboratorium, was simply replicating an existing organism with a few small changes. Mycoplasma Laboratorium was a nearly one to one copy of Mycoplasma Mycoides after all.

I think specific methods of replication to be immaterial. Replication has to be there but it doesn't necessarily have to be a specific kind of replication. I don't see why evolutionary systems can't change their methods of replication over time. For instance in the far future, perhaps people design their children in a computer and then print them out on a sophisticated 3D printer.

I an willing to accept that Mycoplasma Laboratorium is just an existing extension of a previously existing evolutionary system. However it is only a matter of time before humans create a biological organism completely from scratch. We've already come up with XNA which could be used instead of DNA or RNA.

---

Your stipulations about "observing the implementation" don't leave much room, do they, you naughty little sand-filterer? The reason nobody comes up with anything is because they only care about one kind of evolution-- actual evolution, the kind we observe in animals, for which there is no actual evidence of intellect.

Since you're playing loosy-goosy with definitions, I'd say that any persistent pattern that replicates and changes in response to external stimuli would meet a loose definition of evolution. How about crystals? Each new iteration of a crystal's structure does so in response to the existing crystal, i.e. it's "parent." And a snowflake's shape "evolves" in response to variations in climate.

I predict that whatever free-style definition I make, you will shoot it down, but whatever arbitrary human system you make up that are kind of like evolution, you will find it supporting the conclusion that non-human systems are designed by intellect. The special pleading begins in
3. . . 2. . . 1. . .

Your definition defines a set. My definition defines a different set. Inspecting elements of your set allows you to draw conclusions about your set. Inspecting elements in your set does not allow you to draw conclusions about my set.

Now the definition of my set is not very narrow. It certainly isn't designed by me to filter out non intellect created evolutionary systems. I simply took a reasonable definition of evolution and now I am inspecting elements of the set it defines. Its not my fault that so far they all turn out to require intellect to come into existence and I shouldn't turn a blind eye to what I observe simply to avoid offending your atheistic faith.