Detecting design or intent in nature

[Heywood]

All you are doing is assuming that evolutionary systems are at the bottom of the hierarchy. I'm sorry but your assuming your own conclusion is not a compelling counter argument. It is simply sloppy thinking.

I'm assuming no such thing, I'm asking you a question that you evidently don't want to answer, and pointing out that if you're going to dismiss possibilities based on a lack of observations, then we equally have no observations of entities existing without being a product of evolution themselves, which is a huge problem for your argument, for the reasons I explained above.

Now, are you going to answer the question, or not? Where did the first evolutionary system come from? Was it from an entity that arose without having evolved itself, in which case your claims to relying on observation implode? Or was it another evolved entity, putting your claim back in line with observation, but forcing you to conclude that this system developed naturally, as it could not simply infinitely regress?

I didn't observe the first evolutionary system so I don't know the answer to your question. I only know what I observe and what I observe is that evolutionary systems seem to require intellect to come into existence. My conclusion, that evolutionary systems require intellect is based on what I observe.....not on what I did not observe(un-like your conclusions).

And yes....you are assuming your own conclusion. Your question assumes evolutionary systems are at the bottom of the hierarchy. There is no meaningful observational evidence to suggest this is true. Your thinking is wishful and sloppy.