misc lexeme morpholgy and semantic theory

Unfortunately Rob, the evidence suggests that the design we see in living things it exactly the kind of "design" that we know is {inot[/i] intelligent. You have never discussed this even though it has been pointed out to you a number of times.The evidence that we have tells us that biological things are not intelligently "designed". When you say that evidence is best explained you have to explain all of the evidence and not ignore some.Good designs have a number of characteristics. These are present in human produced designs of the most simple kind and the most complex. We make jokes about Rube Goldberg designs because they do not exhibit this characteristics. Living things exhibit exactly the characteristics produced by evolutionary algorithms.

removed out of place postEdited by NosyNed, : wrong thread

Sorry I seem to have missed this yesterday. When I am talking about "good" I am not talking about evolutionary outcomes. I am talking about human designs. We could spend sometimes developing a list of the characteristics. I wasn't aware that you knew nothing about design. It is not clear that any of these questions have any relevance to the issue. We re talking about the output of design processes. You are discussing the process itself.1) No the algorithms do not violate any law and order nor do evolutionary processes.2) There is no choice involved in either process. I have no idea why you included this.3) No, I am not saying that 'good'is symmetrical and "orderly" (whatever that is). Good designs (among other things, are only as complex as needed for the task, are modular, and use good ideas where ever they can be pulled from )4) No, the illustration is discussing the operation of the "design" process and the outcome not the establishment of the environment in which it works. The human beings in this case correspond to what a deists god is taken to be. They set up the situation and wait to see what comes out.There seems to be no relevant content in the rest of the post.You are also right that this is off-topic here. I will start a "design" topic for it.

On the contrary, YOU are talking about output.You say we can look at living things which are the output. From looking at those outputs you say we infer the process which produced them.I'm noting that there are two kinds of processes which we are aware of. I'm saying when we look at the outputs we can make a judgment about which type of process produced them.The rest of your post has nothing to do with anything.

Actually you are correct. We are both talking about both process and output.Your thesis seems to be that we can look at output alone without knowing anything about process and make an inference about the process.Mine is that we know something about both output and process in a couple of cases and can make an inference about process from the characteristics of the output. In addition, we have evidence about the details of the process in the case of living things as well.