Richard Dawkin's big blunder

[Esquilax]

By "blind" I think Dawkins means evolution isn't destined to produce a particular outcome....that there is no component of an evolutionary system which looks ahead.

That is, literally, what I said.

He demonstrates this by replicating evolution which has looked ahead because he can't replicate cumulative selection otherwise. He makes an assertion which is completely contradicted by his example. Why should I or anyone believe his assertion?

He did specifically say that his example was "a bit of a cheat." He acknowledges the contradiction. You should believe his assertion because it's true, which is evidence in a wide variety of evolutionary results.

There are so many organisms featuring traits that illustrate just perfectly how evolution does not, in any way, have a sense of foresight or coherence of design. Giant squid brains, for example, are donut shaped, and their esophagus travels right through the center ring, and is capable of touching the sides. Does that sound like something that's looking ahead to you?

[Heywood]

By "blind" I think Dawkins means evolution isn't destined to produce a particular outcome....that there is no component of an evolutionary system which looks ahead.

That is, literally, what I said.

You said he meant there was no conscious force guiding it....which is quite a bit different then there is no component of an evolutionary system which looks ahead.

He demonstrates this by replicating evolution which has looked ahead because he can't replicate cumulative selection otherwise. He makes an assertion which is completely contradicted by his example. Why should I or anyone believe his assertion?

He did specifically say that his example was "a bit of a cheat." He acknowledges the contradiction. You should believe his assertion because it's true, which is evidence in a wide variety of evolutionary results.

I should believe his assertion because it true? When fundies tell you to believe the bible because it is true do you still believe their assertion? This is poor argumentation on your part. In the video Dawkins makes an assertion, and goes on to state that his example fails to substantiate the assertion he makes. It isn't convincing.

Perhaps you can correct Dawkins' failure and produce an example of replicated cumulative selection that isn't "cheat".

[Fidel_Castronaut]

And do you think that it requires a sentient being to keep those rivers flowing?

Evolution is different from a river. You can replicate a river by the simple act of dumping a whole lot of water on the ground and the river will form its own banks.

If you try to replicate evolution you need to construct those banks before hand.

Time, lots and lots of time, constructed it. There was no contractor hired to do the heavy lifting.

And besides, I actually think that's wrong. Evolution and 'the banks' are not inseparable. They're part of the same equation. Mass extinction has occurred many times on this planet in its very short history thanks to very slight changes in the environment in which species are evolving. If evolution was guided, I could only draw the conclusion that the designer was incompetent to the extreme if it had to wipe out its project many times before it got to the current lot of organisms.

EDIT: Sorry, I see you say that a creator would have started at abiogenesis, which renders all conversations about evolution beyond that moot.

So really the only question is, what's the evidence for such an assertion?

---

By positing a god in this, you're saying that these "targets" are being aimed for from the outset, but in reality they are simply the result of an organism evolving to fill an ecological niche, like how water filling a naturally eroded basin will take its shape. The fact that two natural processes happen together and result in a similar shape two times does not mean that there was some designing force pushing them into it.

[Cyberman]

The banks guide the river to a particular destination.

And in turn, the river alters the course of the banks. It's a symbiotic process in the interdependent sense. Neither of the components controls the other. In evolution, natural selection (among other filters) 'selects' for the individuals best suited to survive, reproduce, and pass on their traits - or more properly, 'selects' against those unable to do those things. Neither 'side' in this attritional war - the development of biological traits and the selection process - controls the other. Instead, they act together, interdependently, to generate weird and wonderful 'solutions' that are far more intricate, efficient, and unexpected than even the most intelligent designer could possibly think of. If there is a deus ex machina, where would it need to intervene? And why?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

If there is a deus ex machina, where would it need to intervene? And why?

He's said at the abiogensis stage.

[Cyberman]

Right, I must have missed that bit. The why still demands an answer though.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Right, I must have missed that bit. The why still demands an answer though.

Oh 100% agree. Sorry, just posting just in case

Yes, indeed, 'why'? It's probably the largest question for someone proposing anything god related to get over.

"His mind is unknowable" (Contradiction) or "works in mysterious ways" tends to be the response.

[Heywood]

If evolution was guided, I could only draw the conclusion that the designer was incompetent to the extreme if it had to wipe out its project many times before it got to the current lot of organisms.

Because something is guided doesn't necessarily mean their was a conscious designer.

But lets for a moment assume that natural evolution was designed by God. Why would God allow periodic mass extinctions? To me its obvious...mass extinctions are filters which must be passed. An evolutionary system designed to produce human like intelligent is going to select against non human like intelligence. Its going to kill off non human like intelligences that emerges and becomes dominate(assuming human like intellect is the desire goal or a desired milestone of the evolutionary system).

Also, I'm not convinced that human beings are the end goal of some conscious deity. There are only a finite number of different organism DNA can code for and therefore a there is a finite limit on DNA based biological intellect. Our role may be that of just a precursor element whose purpose is to facilitate the next stage in the emergence of consciousness and intellect.

---

Right, I must have missed that bit. The why still demands an answer though.

Oh 100% agree. Sorry, just posting just in case

Yes, indeed, 'why'? It's probably the largest question for someone proposing anything god related to get over.

"His mind is unknowable" (Contradiction) or "works in mysterious ways" tends to be the response.

Subject of another thread. Lets keep this one focused on whether or not evolution is a blind process.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

If evolution was guided, I could only draw the conclusion that the designer was incompetent to the extreme if it had to wipe out its project many times before it got to the current lot of organisms.

Because something is guided doesn't necessarily mean their was a conscious designer.

But lets for a moment assume that natural evolution was designed by God. Why would God allow periodic mass extinctions? To me its obvious...mass extinctions are filters which must be passed. An evolutionary system designed to produce human like intelligent is going to select against non human like intelligence. Its going to kill off non human like intelligences that emerges and becomes dominate(assuming human like intellect is the desire goal or a desired milestone of the evolutionary system).

Also, I'm not convinced that human beings are the end goal of some conscious deity. There are only a finite number of different organism DNA can code for and therefore a there is a finite limit on DNA based biological intellect. Our role may be that of just a precursor element whose purpose is to facilitate the next stage in the emergence of consciousness and intellect.

Humanity isn't the dominant force on our planet today, though. Not by a long shot.

I'm sorry but I can't play the 'let's say god did x' as I don't have any understanding of what a god is.

Do you have citations for your limit on DNA intelligence?

I'm also struggling to find anything of substance in your posts that Occam's razor doesn't eliminate.

Oh 100% agree. Sorry, just posting just in case

Yes, indeed, 'why'? It's probably the largest question for someone proposing anything god related to get over.

"His mind is unknowable" (Contradiction) or "works in mysterious ways" tends to be the response.

Subject of another thread. Lets keep this one focused on whether or not evolution is a blind process.

You brought it up, not me.

[Alex K]

I'm bored... Heywood, your speculations have become tedious. Did you get your concept of Evolution from Star Trek?