Richard Dawkin's big blunder

[Esquilax]

I'll restate for I think the third time....maybe third time will be the charm and you will stop ignoring it. I think Dawkins means by "blindness" that natural evolution isn't guided by anything. I think this because he gives an accurate demonstration of how evolution works and calls it a cheat because his demonstration is clearly guided.

And you're wrong, a third time. To begin with, Dawkins' model features an actual, complete target that is being evolved toward, which is why he calls it a cheat. To make a comparison with natural evolution, in order for Dawkins' model to be accurate there would have to be some force saying "today I am going to evolve a wolf," and then specifically selecting traits based not on the environment, but on how much closer that animal's lineage gets to looking like a wolf. Evolution does not work anything like that, and hence the computer model's specific target is a cheat.

It's also a cheat in a number of other ways, incidentally; for one, there's no guarantee that every positive trait will survive, in nature.