Richard Dawkin's big blunder

[Heywood]

By "blind" I think Dawkins means evolution isn't destined to produce a particular outcome....that there is no component of an evolutionary system which looks ahead.

That is, literally, what I said.

You said he meant there was no conscious force guiding it....which is quite a bit different then there is no component of an evolutionary system which looks ahead.

He demonstrates this by replicating evolution which has looked ahead because he can't replicate cumulative selection otherwise. He makes an assertion which is completely contradicted by his example. Why should I or anyone believe his assertion?

He did specifically say that his example was "a bit of a cheat." He acknowledges the contradiction. You should believe his assertion because it's true, which is evidence in a wide variety of evolutionary results.

I should believe his assertion because it true? When fundies tell you to believe the bible because it is true do you still believe their assertion? This is poor argumentation on your part. In the video Dawkins makes an assertion, and goes on to state that his example fails to substantiate the assertion he makes. It isn't convincing.

Perhaps you can correct Dawkins' failure and produce an example of replicated cumulative selection that isn't "cheat".