Richard Dawkin's big blunder

[downbeatplumb]

A)He believes natural evolution isn't guided by anything and thus not homing in on anything(which is clearly a blunder because it sometimes does home in on particular forms).

No it doesn't.

Evolutionary forces acting on similar things in similar circumstances have similar results.

This does not imply they are in anyway guided.

[Heywood]

So I rewatched the segment. You completely misunderstand why he says that his example is a bit of a cheat:
He calls it a cheat because his computer example specifies the precise phenotype directly (the goal sentence) rather than a selection criterion such as a "fitness measure" on sentences. The latter would not be a cheat, but would also not yield a fixed result. Just like evolution in nature.

This is good criticism that has me thinking. I want to think about this a little bit before I respond to you.

[Alex K]

So I rewatched the segment. You completely misunderstand why he says that his example is a bit of a cheat:
He calls it a cheat because his computer example specifies the precise phenotype directly (the goal sentence) rather than a selection criterion such as a "fitness measure" on sentences. The latter would not be a cheat, but would also not yield a fixed result. Just like evolution in nature.

This is good criticism that has me thinking. I want to think about this a little bit before I respond to you.

Sure take your time, it's not like we're going anywhere except to bed maybe

[Chas]

You don't think Dawkins is completely aware of what you say here, and hence uses blindness differently from what you would like it to mean? Your thread title is very grandiose, you might as well change it to: I define some words differently from Dawkins, and therefore he's wrong!. Darwin himself starts out his book with longish chapters on animal breeding and pidgeon fancying, what you say here has been obvious to people from the start.

I don't think Dawkins is aware of what I say here or if he is aware then he is intentionally misleading his audience to promote an atheistic worldview. I tend to think that his error is innocent until I have evidence otherwise.

By blind I mean not guided by anything. I believe Dawkins is using blind the same way.

I think that because Dawkins uses an example of evolution that is guided by a fitness function, selection mechanism, fitness paradigm...what ever you want to call it. Dawkins goes on to claim that real evolution is not like his example(which he calls a bit of a cheat), that it isn't guided to a particular form by natural selection like his computer program.

Dawkins is wrong because evolution will always home in on a specific set of targets guided by the fitness paradigm. If the fitness paradigm is sufficiently constrained, evolution will home in on an exact solution....just like his computer program did.

His computer program was not a cheat but a real example of how evolution works.

---

Being a theos must suck... millions of years of hard work to get busted by something as trivial as a "natural disaster", or deforestation...

For an eternal being, billions of years is but an instance. For an all powerful being, there is no such thing as 'hard work". From a human perspective evolution as a creative process looks circuitous but this is not the case for God.

You are utterly and blindingly wrong. Natural selection does not home in on anything. It is a mindless process.

Dawkins's examples are to show aspects of evolution; they are not evolution, and he clearly says so and why.

But I suggest you write up your paper and send it to him.

---

Since by 'fitness paradigm' you seem to mean 'natural selection to improve adaptation to the reproductive environment' which is pretty much what evolution is, I presume that you would consider your speculation falsified (not that speculation needs to be falsified, it needs to be supported in the first place before it rises to the level that anyone should be bothered to try to falsify it) if the reproductive environment isn't designed, for example, if the reproductive environment is random.

Is that a fair statement? If so, do you want to change anything about your speculation at this point?

If you could generate the complexity we observe and attribute to natural selection with a completely random fitness paradigm, I would consider my speculation falsified.

Then falsified it is.

Natural selection depends on the environment, and that is constantly changing in unpredictable ways.

---

Are you joking? You think that similar circumstances leading to similar looking results of natural selection is somehow at odds with an atheistic worldview? That's wrong, and your charge that there is anything to hide is ridiculous.

Dawkins showed that an intellect can use evolution as a means to a specific end. He then called his demonstration a cheat. Why?

A)He believes natural evolution isn't guided by anything and thus not homing in on anything(which is clearly a blunder because it sometimes does home in on particular forms).

No it doesn't. Please provide some credible evidence for your statement.

B)He realizes evolution is guided by a fitness paradigm but was concerned people would conclude God used this as a means of creation(contrary to an atheistic world view).

Just no.

---

You substantiated the fact that you seem to mean something different from him by blindness of evolution, nothing more.

I addressed this concern but you ignored it. It seems that blindness, in Dawkins eyes, means not guided by anything. Hence he called his own accurate demonstration of how evolution works....a bit of a cheat...because it was guided by a fitness function.

Is natural evolution a bit of a cheat too because it is guided by a fitness function?

You have yet to demonstrate that it is guided or what precisely a 'fitness function' is. Your argument is not coherent.

---

Is natural evolution a bit of a cheat too because it is guided by a fitness function?

No, you have it ass-backwards again. Whatever guides the selection process in nature is what you have to use as your "fitness function" in the theory in order to describe nature.

---

I addressed this concern but you ignored it. It seems that blindness, in Dawkins eyes, means not guided by anything.

No I'm pretty sure that's not what Dawkins means by blindness. You just made that up.

Actually, it is part of what 'blindness' means in that context. The primary meaning is without goals or foresight.

---

No I'm pretty sure that's not what Dawkins means by blindness. You just made that up.

No, I gave you a rationale why I thought that. However when you quote me, you conveniently leave that reason out.

I'll restate for I think the third time....maybe third time will be the charm and you will stop ignoring it. I think Dawkins means by "blindness" that natural evolution isn't guided by anything. I think this because he gives an accurate demonstration of how evolution works and calls it a cheat because his demonstration is clearly guided.

You are still confused about this. The examples are a 'cheat' because they are guided. He knows it, I know it, and pretty much everyone here except you knows it.

Dawkins, and everyone else who understands evolution by natural selection mean unguided, without goals, without foresight when they call the algorithm 'blind'.

Dawkins is neither confused or wrong; you are both.

---

What DID you imply, if you argue that evolution needs guidance by an intelligence to work, but you don't mean God? Do you want to argue that one can set the initial conditions such that the outcome is exactly what is desired by your deity?

If Dawkins can do it(and he did....but he called it cheating), then God can.

Good. Now demonstrate the existence of God.

Or show how evolution is guided - you have failed to do so as yet.

[Heywood]

This is good criticism that has me thinking. I want to think about this a little bit before I respond to you.

Sure take your time, it's not like we're going anywhere except to bed maybe

First, I would like to ask you if you can demonstrate cumulative selection without utilizing a target? Has this ever been done?

Second, Do you agree that for any selection criterion, there will exist some set of targets which evolution will home in on?

Third, specifying the precise phenotype is just a lazy way of programming a selection criterion. Suppose the target sentence was "I am". He could write a selection criterion that homed in on this sentence just as well as it homed in on his precisely stated phenotype. For example, His program could favor 4 character sentences(I'm including the space character). His program could favor more vowels than consonants. His program could favor the characters "I", " ", "a", "m". His program could favor sentences where vowels proceed consonants. His program could favor sentences in which the vowels are in reverse alphabetical order....so on and so forth. Instead he wrote a selection criterion that favored one specific sentence because it was easier.

[max-greece]

First, I would like to ask you if you can demonstrate cumulative selection without utilizing a target? Has this ever been done?

OK - do you think the person that came up with the wheel had a Ferrari in mind as an end-point - or even a midpoint?

Do you think the Wright brothers considered the 747 as they made their flight?

When the Germans made the V1 and V2 rockets were they thinking of the moon or Mars as possible destinations?

How many do you want?

Second, Do you agree that for any selection criterion, there will exist some set of targets which evolution will home in on?

Evolution doesn't have selection critieria nor targets. Natural Selection is the process whereby creatures adapt to their environment. When the environment changes dramatically some creatures will adapt, others will fail to adapt and go extinct. This is what happened to your first example - the Thylacine.

Third, specifying the precise phenotype is just a lazy way of programming a selection criterion. Suppose the target sentence was "I am". He could write a selection criterion that homed in on this sentence just as well as it homed in on his precisely stated phenotype. For example, His program could favor 4 character sentences(I'm including the space character). His program could favor more vowels than consonants. His program could favor the characters "I", " ", "a", "m". His program could favor sentences where vowels proceed consonants. His program could favor sentences in which the vowels are in reverse alphabetical order....so on and so forth. Instead he wrote a selection criterion that favored one specific sentence because it was easier.

You are anthropomorphizing the process to a huge degree. There is no favouring in nature other than the biological limits that creatures cannot surpass. No creature, whatever its need for speed, will evolve a jet engine (although you could argue that is what the Octopus has done).

[Esquilax]

First, I would like to ask you if you can demonstrate cumulative selection without utilizing a target? Has this ever been done?

It's actually kinda begging the question to presume that any natural selection did have a target without demonstrating one...

Second, Do you agree that for any selection criterion, there will exist some set of targets which evolution will home in on?

Yes and no: yes, there are certain ideal traits that reoccur, no they do not constitute a "target" that is being shot for. You're still approaching this backwards: rather than being the end goal, these traits just bear out to be the most useful in a set of given circumstances, and so those mutations that lead to them get favored.

Imagine it like a river, that branches of periodically. Some branches have rocks blocking the way forward, some don't, and looking at the whole you can see that those pathways that don't get blocked off end up having more smaller branches off of them. Would you say then that the river is "targeting" non-blocked paths, or would you just say that this is physics acting on environmental factors?

Third, specifying the precise phenotype is just a lazy way of programming a selection criterion. Suppose the target sentence was "I am". He could write a selection criterion that homed in on this sentence just as well as it homed in on his precisely stated phenotype. For example, His program could favor 4 character sentences(I'm including the space character). His program could favor more vowels than consonants. His program could favor the characters "I", " ", "a", "m". His program could favor sentences where vowels proceed consonants. His program could favor sentences in which the vowels are in reverse alphabetical order....so on and so forth. Instead he wrote a selection criterion that favored one specific sentence because it was easier.

That's why he called it a cheat, precisely because it was simple and easy, yet did not reflect the true process.

[Tonus]

I have not claimed it proves supernatural design. However since evolution is guided by the fitness paradigm, an intellect can use it as a creative process to produce specific forms.

Like malaria?

[Heywood]

First, I would like to ask you if you can demonstrate cumulative selection without utilizing a target? Has this ever been done?

It's actually kinda begging the question to presume that any natural selection did have a target without demonstrating one...

If evolution is blind, then shouldn't cumulative selection be demonstrable without a target? This is a fair question.

Second, Do you agree that for any selection criterion, there will exist some set of targets which evolution will home in on?

Yes and no: yes, there are certain ideal traits that reoccur, no they do not constitute a "target" that is being shot for. You're still approaching this backwards: rather than being the end goal, these traits just bear out to be the most useful in a set of given circumstances, and so those mutations that lead to them get favored.

The answer can't be yes and no because that is contradictory. Either evolution homes in on some set of targets as guided by the fitness paradigm, or it doesn't. The answer is yes it does.

Now you're basically claiming these targets don't exist until evolution produces them and therefore I am looking at it "ass backwards". This isn't true because these targets exist as possibilities or potential outcomes. Maybe it would be clearer if the question were phrased:

Do you agree that for any selection criterion, there will exist some set of potential outcomes which evolution will home in on?

---

First, I would like to ask you if you can demonstrate cumulative selection without utilizing a target? Has this ever been done?

OK - do you think the person that came up with the wheel had a Ferrari in mind as an end-point - or even a midpoint?

Do you think the Wright brothers considered the 747 as they made their flight?

When the Germans made the V1 and V2 rockets were they thinking of the moon or Mars as possible destinations?

How many do you want?

You listed the 747 as a target for the cumulative selection of manned flight, the Ferrari as a target for the cumulative selection of wheeled transportation, and the moon landing as a target for the cumulative selection of rocketry.

Now can you demonstrate cumulative selection without utilizing a target? That was the question asked.

[Esquilax]

If evolution is blind, then shouldn't cumulative selection be demonstrable without a target? This is a fair question.

How would one go about proving a negative like that? That's the problem I'm having; to ask if this is demonstrable sans target would mean that you're presuming you've seen evolution happening naturally with a target, something that needs to be demonstrated in itself.

Do you agree that for any selection criterion, there will exist some set of potential outcomes which evolution will home in on?

That's a difficult question though, is my point: convergent evolution demonstrates that there are certain outcomes that are obviously better suited to a given environment, so in that respect the answer is yes. On the other hand, there is no guarantee of this, and it's entirely possible that, given the random nature of mutations, we would see evolution down a path that's merely good enough, rather than the seemingly "optimum" path convergent evolution shows.

To say these things will be homed in on is to apply a level of direction here that simply isn't present; things slip through the cracks all the time, and evolution isn't a binary beneficial/nonexistent process. All we can really say is that there are certain traits that have a proven track record of working, and that if they do show up they should be favored. But evolution is weird, and the interactions within its framework aren't as easy to predict as you're wanting to make them.