Richard Dawkin's big blunder

[Esquilax]

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.

So, three things: one, physics does not equal biology. Two, if the mechanism has no evidence for it, then it's irrational to believe it exists. Three, you have presented nothing but arguments from ignorance, and hence no reason to draw the conclusion you wish us to.

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.

No it isn't! Oh my fucking god, how hard is this to get through your skull? Convergent evolution is the result of similar environmental stimuli resulting in similar evolutionary traits. Continually asserting guidance without demonstrating it, as you're doing, does not suddenly make it so.

Do you have any evidence that this process is guided?

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.

Your analogy shows just how profoundly you don't understand this. It's just wrong; what we're saying is akin to saying that if you introduce two chemicals together in two different beakers, the results will be the same because the chemicals reacting together are the same. What you're saying is that the second set of chemicals has no reason to react the same as the first, and so is obviously being guided toward that reaction... despite providing no evidence of guidance.

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.

No, you wouldn't, because the mutations would still be random and it's entirely possible that a mutation could arise beyond our predictive capabilities that is still better suited to the environment. And again, evolution works on a criteria of "good enough," so less than ideal traits can still propagate; only outright harmful traits that are fatal get selected out. This is a much wider topic than you're thinking.

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.

Are rainclouds and wind essentially a blueprint for puddles?

Oh, and don't think I didn't notice you shiftily ignoring the fact that you got called out on quote mining me.