""The system is evolving by following the rules Darwin set out without any human intervention
How do you come to the conclusion it is not Darwinian? True he formulated them for biological systems but if you read 'Origins' carefully you will see it is not restricted to that.""

Of course he hasn't read, and will never read, Origins. He doesn't need to.

I admit to a rhetorical flourish when I wrote that, Troubadour. I know Pete hasn't read Origins. Let me explain why I am interested in this example. As I insist, it is Darwinian outside the biologal context. As a result it totally overcomes pete's main objections to The mechanics of Darwinism by showing it working effectively within what he delights in calling observable science. Now rationally you can say yes that proves the Darwinist approach works sometimes, but it does not prove it worked for the biological sphere. However, in pete's case his antagonism to Darwinist ideas is so intense he seems unable to accept it ever works, even in a different context in this odd observable scientific world.

Now, I can see only one rational basis for claiming my illustration is not Darwinian, and that is that his theory is so focussed on biological systems that it applying it to non-biological itself stops it being Darwinian. So I headed that off by saying nothing in Origins restricts it to only biological systems.