Richard Dawkin's big blunder
March 17, 2014 at 5:25 pm
(This post was last modified: March 17, 2014 at 5:26 pm by Rampant.A.I..)
(March 17, 2014 at 5:09 pm)Heywood Wrote:(March 17, 2014 at 4:01 am)Esquilax Wrote: This is the problem with you: you make this assertion that evolution can look ahead, while providing no mechanism through which that can happen. You're all bark and no bite; what process in natural selection "looks ahead" to you? What part of the natural world is making predictions and guiding evolution? For that matter, how does an unconscious environment guide anything?
In the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment, photons "look ahead" in a way that it not understood by physics. Just because a mechanism isn't clearly provided by theory doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You have to look at what you observe and draw conclusions and not be afraid if those conclusions go against your world view.
Convergent evolution exists, this is a fact and it is not in dispute. Convergent evolution is the name given to the phenomena of evolution homing in on particular forms or targets. You can say this is not targeting but rather just the best solution manifesting itself but that is like saying hungry people don't target the buffet, but instead they naturally go to where the food is. All you are doing is re-describing the phenomena with different words because you don't like the connotation of some words. In that process you are blinding yourself to new insights and ideas.
In this thread I gave an example of a selection criterion that is essentially a description of the product that evolution will produce. I would speculate that if one were to know and understand the selection criterion of any evolutionary system in sufficient detail they would be able to predict what products will be derived from that system.
The aggregate of selective pressures are essentially a blue print. Cumulative selection is the mechanism by which that blue print becomes actualized. A process which follows an identifiable plan is not blind. Dawkins is wrong.
Keep saying "blueprint" until you're blue in the face, that doesn't mean there's a blueprint.
It means the convergent forms are the best adapted for a given environment. There is no outside force "guiding" or "intending" those forms to be arrived at by evolution.
They're simply the best adapted for a given environment. In fact, the length of your over-reaching here, to redefine "convergent forms" as "proof of a blueprint" is a desperate God of the Gaps argument.
Per the earlier example by other posters, what you're arguing is tantamount to "puddles are signs of water's intelligence, as you can see the water intelligently conforms itself to the outline of a ditch."
No, you're witnessing the outcome of physical properties. No blueprints, ID, or magical wizard guiding the process, or assigning intelligence required.
