Richard Dawkin's big blunder

[Heywood]

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?

The evidence that it is guided is the fact that evolution tends to a common result. It is guided by evolutionary stimuli. Evolutionary stimuli or fitness paradigm is the context in which evolution takes place. You yourself admitted that evolution is guided the same way a river is guided by its banks. I agree. As far as I can tell we really are not in disagreement.

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.

There is no random element in the chemical reaction you describe so of course the results will be identical. If the ancestors of the grey wolf and the marsupial wolf mutated identically then obviously you would expect the final forms to be identical. Evolution doesn't work like chemical reactions so your analogy fails.

---

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.

We have seen evolution happen in nature, as a consequence of random genetic change and the resultant organism's subsequent interactions with the environment. Given that those are the only consistently detectable elements to natural evolution, and your only argument for intelligence in it is "I can't see how this could happen naturally," then there's no reason for us to provide anything more than the simple observations. We can observe the natural, unguided evolution, and you haven't provided us anything that would suggest that an intelligence is involved; you're attempting to add in a layer of complexity for which there's no evidence and no reason to believe beyond that you want to.

The burden of proof lies with you, as you're making the positive claim beyond what is evident.

What is evident to me is that evolutionary systems whose origins are known all came into existence with the involvement of an intellect...somewhere in the process. That suggests that perhaps evolutionary systems cannot come into being without the involvement of an intellect.

Now one thing that bothers me about what I wrote above is how does an intellect replicate evolution without being involved in the process? Obviously there would be some involvement...but it shouldn't be substantive. It shouldn't consist of designing fitness function for instance.