RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
February 6, 2015 at 3:41 pm
(This post was last modified: February 6, 2015 at 3:45 pm by Heywood.)
(February 6, 2015 at 3:37 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:(February 6, 2015 at 3:21 pm)Chas Wrote: I am not denying your set exists. What gave you that idea?
Do you understand what disjoint subsets are?
The set of all polygons is a set.
Quadrilaterals are a subset of polygons; triangles are a subset of polygons.
While they share the characteristics common to all polygons, they are disjoint subsets as neither shares all of the characteristics of the other.
Prove all you want about triangles, but you have proved nothing about quadrilaterals.
Your set contains some elements that reproduce and some that don't.
Those are disjoint subsets of your set.
Proving something about the subset of non-reproducers does not prove anything about the subset of reproducers.
Can't get any clearer than that.
Yet, he still won't get it.
Chas is wrong because something true about all polygons would be true of all triangles. I can't make his error any more clear than that.
If something is true about all the elements of the set I am talking about, it is true of biological evolution provided biological evolution is an element of the set I am talking about.
