Richard Dawkin's big blunder

[Heywood]

You ask us for an example where humans replicate natural evolution, but without involving an intellect? Come on, you must be trolling. No one can be this obviously inconsistent without noticing, for 24 pages on end.

I have addressed this concern of yours already...multiple times. Each time you ignore it. Now you are stooping to claiming I am trolling?

I find that are you are not a worthy adversary.

---

Because plausible mechanisms have been proposed (RNA world) which would explain the kickoff of the world's longest lasting unbroken organic chemical reaction. Your observation that we haven't seen new systems of replication with variation arise without intentional intervention is moot if the only intellects we have ever witnessed are the result of natural, unintelligent, processes.

This is a good point on your part. Now I have asserted that every time one sees an evolutionary system whose inception is known to be the result of an intellect(without ever observing an evolutionary system whose inception is known to have resulted without the involvement of an intellect)...it increases the likelihood that all evolutionary systems require an intellect. I do recognize that the probability that all observed evolutionary systems require an intellect can never exceed the probability of the existence of the creating intellect in the first place. This is obvious.

However, If I conclude that evolutionary systems seem to require an intellect to exist, that gives me reason to believe the probability of an intellect capable of creating the evolutionary system which created us is fairly high.

I'd rather say that in the production of replicating, evolving systems, intellect is sufficient but its necessity is unproven.

It is equally unproven that evolution can happen without an intellect. But it is proven that evolution can happen with an intellect.

In answer to the OP point about convergent evolution:
Convergent evolution requires intelligence to guide it as much as rain requires intelligence to find the river which takes it back to the ocean. Intelligence might do the job, but gravity is the simpler explanation.

The water that falls as rain will take a predictable, pre-destined path to the ocean. It doesn't just blindly move toward the ocean in a drunkard's walk kind of way.