You, on the other hand, are projecting.
Water is not intelligent. Therefore Neptune, the god of the sea, must be telling all the water in the world which way to go so it can flow into the sea, where Neptune wants it to end up. No need to learn about any of that non-intelligent gravity stuff. Water needs to be intelligently told which direction to move.
Natural selection works in the same way as compound interest. The more successful you are at reproducing the more grandchildren you will have. Those grandchildren have more copies of your alleles.
Let us clarify your posts and understanding in science and see if they are part of reality or not:
1. I understood the analogy between water and Neptune, good analogy. Now let us apply that in biology.
Evolution claim that the change of freq alleles is non-intelligent, or
water in your analogy. Probably true, but how do you test and confirm that, so that Evolution could be labeled as real scientific theory? Evolution will surely first discuss the topic of intelligence (and its variant words) and correctly define and describe intelligence with experiment, from Evolution. Great claim requires great evidence, for if not, Evolution and its supporters are stupid.
So,
Evolution claim that biological cell does not use intelligence, like
water in your analogy, that is why Darwin, and his supporters like you, quickly concluded Natural Selection, and not Intelligent Selection. Once again, how do you test and confirm that, so that Evolution could be labeled as real scientific theory? Evolution will surely first discuss the topic of intelligence (and its variant words) and correctly define and describe intelligence with experiment, from Evolution. Great claim requires great evidence, for if not, Evolution and its supporters are stupid.
You see how stupid Evolution is and how stupid the supporters of evolution by
quickly claiming something without knowing the topic of
intelligence first? Who taught them science and logical thinking?
2. Natural Selection will be correct if Evolution and its supporters could correctly discuss and show the topic of intelligence in science, and conclude or decide, BUT how do you test and confirm that, so that Evolution could be labeled as real scientific theory? Evolution will surely first discuss the topic of intelligence (and its variant words) and correctly define and describe intelligence with experiment, from Evolution. Great claim requires great evidence, for if not, Evolution and its supporters are stupid.
YOU SEE how stupid Evolution is and how Darwin made you stupid?
Now, what is really
intelligence or
smart or controlled or intentional, etc and how will you apply that in biology, so that Evolution could quickly correctly conclude natural Selection and conclude that there is really no intelligence in biology?