Richard Dawkin's big blunder

[Chas]

I believe the point of convergent evolution is that similar circumstances will result in similar adaptions. Variability is blind, but which traits are advantageous will be determined by the fit to the current environment. So evolution is not evidence of any teleology. Nature by way of evolution is not aiming toward certain designs. But it stands to reason that what is advantageous in one place will also be so in other, isolated locations so long as the relevant circumstances are similar. I don't really see what you find contradictory.

I wouldn't say nature is aiming for certain forms(design is not good word choice me thinks). I would say nature is guided by the fit to the current environment(what I call a fitness paradigm) toward producing specific forms.

From a theistic perspective, God (or any sufficient intellect for that matter) can create whatever is desired by designing the fitness paradigm to guide evolution toward that form.

I will go out on a limb and speculate that you can not simulate evolution which resembles the natural evolution we observe without designing a fitness paradigm.

Your 'fitness paradigm' is a chimera. There is only differential reproductive success.

And of course we can't create a simulation without designing it. That has absolutely nothing to do with what we are simulating.


N.B. It's "Dawkins's".