Richard Dawkin's big blunder

[max-greece]

There were not targets at the time of the first developments. Obviously with the benefit of hindsight they appear like targets when patently they weren't.

What you are asking for is an example of development without an endpoint - which would be whatever stage that development is at now. That is logically impossible unless there is something which has had no development.

In other words your request makes no sense.

No what I am asking for is a demonstration of cumulative selection that does not require a target.

Those targets you utilized all existed as possible outcomes at the start of the cumulative selection process. Unless you or someone can demonstrate otherwise, I am forced to conclude that cumulative selection seems to require a potential target to exist in order for it to occur.

Moving the goalposts much? We were talking about targets and now we are talking about potential targets. Anything and everything can be a potential target.

As someone has already indicated on this thread the target is survival for the species. It is a target that is usually (98-99.8%) missed and the species went extinct.

If human beings eventually get into space in a big way so that there are generations that are born, live and die there and they adapt to their new surroundings is that proof of a potential target? In your worldv-iew it is.

At the same time if one isolated group of people living by the river deep in the Amazonian Rain forest spend so much time in the river they start to develop webbed feet is that a potential target? - Why yes.

Sorry dude - its still a nonsense - whatever you think you must conclude.