Richard Dawkin's big blunder

[max-greece]

Actually it is you guys who seem to be asserting that evolutionary systems can come into existence without the involvement of an intellect......but for some reason....you can never substantiate that assertion.

On the other hand....its very easy to demonstrate evolutionary systems coming into existence with the involvement of an intellect.

I think you are being somewhat selective in your reading of the answers posted in this thread.

I have made 2 posts that you have ignored - the first being on the origins of whales and the second on DNA and its incompatibility with the idea of an intelligent designer - except on the basis of one that is learning on the job.

Further, to repeat a response that you have ignored throughout there is the issue of failure. 98-99.8% of all species that have ever lived have gone extinct. If that is the result of intelligent tinkering it is not by an intelligence I would rate particularly highly. Even allowing for the idea of learning on the job - slow learner.

So - can we prove that evolution isn't guided?

Only circumstantially because, as ever, it is impossible to prove a negative - the Jovian Teapot springs to mind (as one user had named themselves on here).

There are, however, strong indications that environmental issues play an enormous part in evolution. Island dwarfism (eg. the Maltese Elephant, the "Hobbit", the Cyprus Dwarf Hippo and so on) indicates that isolated species with limited resources respond by reducing size.

At the same time, on islands where resources are not limited, this is not observed. In fact the opposite can occur - see the New Zealand moa dinornithidae - probably the largest bird ever to have lived.

Finally, in some ways you are undermining your own argument with the foray into the limited number of possible combinations of DNA. Faced with similar environmental demands there is a tendency amongst creatures to adopt similar solutions when occupying the equivalent niche - possibly because DNA offers limited options - your argument.

With all of the above in mind - why are we resisting the concept of intelligence behind evolution? 2 reasons - there is no evidence for it and its the more complicated option as it requires an unexplained designer (a not massively competent one to boot).