Richard Dawkin's big blunder

[Heywood]

That's a difficult question though, is my point: convergent evolution demonstrates that there are certain outcomes that are obviously better suited to a given environment, so in that respect the answer is yes. On the other hand, there is no guarantee of this, and it's entirely possible that, given the random nature of mutations, we would see evolution down a path that's merely good enough, rather than the seemingly "optimum" path convergent evolution shows.

If it is "good enough", it is contained in the set of targets evolution homes in on.

Dawkins could have wrote his computer program so that it contained 3 targets....any which is good enough.

Target 1, "Methinks it is like a weasel "
Target 2, "Love all trust few do wrong to none "
Target 3, "Hell is empty and all the devils are here"

One of those sentences would evolve and Dawkins would have said it was still a bit of a cheat(because he decided the potential targets).