Richard Dawkin's big blunder

[Esquilax]

Unguided evolution would be descent with change. There would be no cumulative selection. It would look like the random sentence generator in Dawkins' example.

At this point I have to ask: do you understand evolution at all?

Do you understand that there are selection pressures weighing down the definitely random mutations organisms go through? Do you understand that entirely random changes like you're describing would probably not be healthy for the animal, causing it to die off? Do you comprehend that only those organisms with alterations that allow them to survive in their environment will be able to propagate, thereby creating a system where certain traits repeat because of their favorable effects? Do you get natural selection, in other words?

See, this is the problem with your line of argument: you keep going on about targets as a way of slipping your god in under the door, while steadfastly refusing to so much as talk about the actual, natural process that we've already shown you performs the function you're thinking about.

By positing a god in this, you're saying that these "targets" are being aimed for from the outset, but in reality they are simply the result of an organism evolving to fill an ecological niche, like how water filling a naturally eroded basin will take its shape. The fact that two natural processes happen together and result in a similar shape two times does not mean that there was some designing force pushing them into it.