Richard Dawkin's big blunder

[Esquilax]

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

So... what the fuck are you even asking for? If every beneficial evolution is a target to you, and evolution selects for beneficial mutations, then how can anyone possibly falsify what you're saying?

If it can't be falsified, then it's not honest; all you're doing is enfolding everything I say into your answer, but what is it you're actually looking for? What would "evolution without a target," even look like, to you?

If you can't tell us that, then you haven't even got a question worth answering. You've just got a lump of question-begging calling evolutionary "first" every time we give you an example. It's dishonest.