Detecting design or intent in nature

[Chas]

You keep assuming that your subset is equivalent to the whole set when that is what you are trying prove. Fallacy city.
You are trying to sneak in Assuming The Consequent.

When you prove something for the subset of your Heywood things that are man-made, that does not say a thing about those that have not been demonstrated to be in that subset.

My argument only addresses the elements of the set I have defined. It does not reference any other set or subset. You are making a straw man argument by pretending the set I am talking about is defined by your definition and not mine. It does nobody any good for you to refute fantasy arguments instead of the one laid before you.

The definition I am using to define the set I am drawing conclusions about is very reasonable. I am talking about the set of all systems which contain all these elements: Replication, Heritable traits, Change, and Selection.. Can you give one example of a system which contains these elements which is known to come into existence without intellect? Present real observations please.....not professions of what you believe as a matter of faith.

There is nothing in the definition that I am using that suggests I am targeting man made systems. So trying to refute my argument that way is a dead end.

For the last time: you are only proving something about the subset of your set that are man-made or 'created by intellect'.

Whether you define it or not, there are two disjoint subsets of your set:
known to be created by intellect and not known to be created by intellect.

You are only addressing the members of one subset and concluding knowledge of the members of other subset. That is invalid.