Richard Dawkin's big blunder

[Chas]

Sure take your time, it's not like we're going anywhere except to bed maybe

First, I would like to ask you if you can demonstrate cumulative selection without utilizing a target? Has this ever been done?

Second, Do you agree that for any selection criterion, there will exist some set of targets which evolution will home in on?

Third, specifying the precise phenotype is just a lazy way of programming a selection criterion. Suppose the target sentence was "I am". He could write a selection criterion that homed in on this sentence just as well as it homed in on his precisely stated phenotype. For example, His program could favor 4 character sentences(I'm including the space character). His program could favor more vowels than consonants. His program could favor the characters "I", " ", "a", "m". His program could favor sentences where vowels proceed consonants. His program could favor sentences in which the vowels are in reverse alphabetical order....so on and so forth. Instead he wrote a selection criterion that favored one specific sentence because it was easier.

Go read about the Lenski bacteria experiments, especially the section "Evolution of aerobic citrate usage in one population".

This is a clear demonstration of a well-designed experiment and actual evolution, i.e. no goals, no intention, no guidance, no magic.

---

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.

Every living thing on Earth. Since you can't demonstrate they aren't, I'm forced to conclude they are.

See how stupid that sounds? You really are stuck on your utterly bass ackwards misunderstanding of what a constructed demonstration of one aspect of a natural process is versus the whole process.