Detecting design or intent in nature

[Heywood]

So now we can call anything we like evolution, demonstrate that humans make it, then real evolution is therefor due to an intelligence?

If only actual science was this easy boys.

"Evolution" is just a label so yes we can call anything we like "evolution". But if you don't want to use that term....that is fine. Lets call any system which contains the following elements a "Heywood System". Those elements are replication, heritable traits, change, and selection. Now I have observed different Heywood Systems and in each case where the origin of the system was known, the Heywood System required intellect to be implemented. Now given those observations I have reasonably concluded that it is likely all Heywood Systems require intellects.

Is biological evolution a Heywood System? Well yes it is because it contains the elements of replication, heritable traits, change, and selection. It satisfies the definition of Heywood System and therefore it is a Heywood System. Since it is likely that all Heywood Systems required intellect to be implemented it must also be likely that biological evolution required intellect to be implemented. To conclude otherwise would be to make a special pleading fallacy.

Now you can falsify the conclusion that it is likely that biological evolution required an intellect to be implemented by showing that it does not satisfy the definition of a Heywood System. Or you can falsify the conclusion by presenting an observation of a Heywood System which did not require an intellect to be implemented.

Playing games like Chas is playing...."oh you are not using my definition so you arugment is false"......doesn't really help you. If you want to refute my argument, you have to use my definitions otherwise you are just straw manning....like Chas.

[Norman Humann]

evo·lu·tion
noun \ˌe-və-ˈlü-shən, ˌē-və-\

biology : a theory that the differences between modern plants and animals are because of changes that happened by a natural process over a very long time
: the process by which changes in plants and animals happen over time
: a process of slow change and development

From Merriam-Webster. Again.

You can't call anything evolution. A sandwich is not an evolution.

[robvalue]

Ok let's test out this logic.

I want to find out the number of molecules in the universe.

I define "molecule" to mean "number of sofas in my house".

Therefor, the number of molecules in the universe is 2.

[Heywood]

Ok let's test out this logic.

I want to find out the number of molecules in the universe.

I define "molecule" to mean "number of sofas in my house".

Therefor, the number of molecules in the universe is 2.

Molecule = A sofa in robs house.
There are two sofas in robs house.
Therefore there are only two molecules.

Your logic is fine.

it doesn't matter what labels we use as long as we agree on what those labels mean.

[Norman Humann]

it doesn't matter what labels we use as long as we agree on what those labels mean.

That's why we have dictionaries. We agree on what things mean. By changing the definition of the word into whatever you like you're not making an argument. Following your logic:

Is there a god?

Let's define god as a red truck in my garage.
There's no red truck in my garage.
Therefore, there is no god.

That is not a valid argument, because the word god obviously has a different meaning. You're not proving anything.

[Heywood]

Let's define god as a red truck in my garage.
There's no red truck in my garage.
Therefore, there is no god.

For this discussion I accept your definition of god. If I present an observation of a red truck in your garage then I have proof of god's existence.

Do you agree or are you going to play games and switch definitions on me like Chas keeps trying to do?

[Norman Humann]

For this discussion I accept your definition of god. If I present an observation of a red truck in your garage then I have proof of god's existence.

Yes, but only in the meaning of a red truck. Not the real definition of the word.

Do you agree or are you going to play games and switch definitions on me like Chas keeps trying to do?

You're the one switching definitions and claiming that we can call anything we like 'evolution'. To continue this discussion we have to agree on one definition of the word. Everyone but you agrees on the one used in the English language, you want your own. This is going nowhere. Whatever claim you're trying to support, you can't do that with a made-up definition of the word.

[robvalue]

For your discussion, no one seems to be accepting your definition of evolution. So that's the problem. You're inventing what you think are things exactly like evolution, or just highlighting smaller parts of the overall evolution on earth. You're trying to prove the outside of the house is blue by pointing to things inside the house that are blue.

[Heywood]

You're the one switching definitions and claiming that we can call anything we like 'evolution'. To continue this discussion we have to agree on one definition of the word. Everyone but you agrees on the one used in the English language, you want your own. This is going nowhere. Whatever claim you're trying to support, you can't do that with a made-up definition of the word.

There is nothing wrong with my definition of evolution. You guys reject it because you think somehow that refutes my argument. Are you denying that biological evolution contains the elements of replication, heritable traits, change and selection? If you are then you don't really understand biological evolution.

[Norman Humann]

There is nothing wrong with my definition of evolution. You guys reject it because you think somehow that refutes my argument. Are you denying that biological evolution contains the elements of replication, heritable traits, change and selection? If you are then you don't really understand biological evolution.

"Evolution" is just a label so yes we can call anything we like "evolution".

I thought that was your definition of evolution.

This discussion is obviously not going anywhere.