Richard Dawkin's big blunder

[Heywood]

Warning! Let me preface by saying that as free thinkers, it is okay to question science and authorities in science. I did a thread on this subject at TTA and some members there were exceedingly butt hurt that I called out Dawkins for making what I think is a blunder. If you are going to be emotionally upset at the thought of Dawkins making a blunder, please just close this thread now and save yourself from some grief. Now on to the subject of discussion.

In my opinion, Dawkins makes a rather large blunder in this clip of The Blind Watch Maker. The specific portion of the clip is the 4:40 mark to the 7:30 mark.





Dawkins makes the claim that natural evolution is blind and does not home in on specific targets. I believe this to be a blunder on his part.

Convergent Evolution is strong evidence that natural evolution does home in on specific targets. Convergent evolution is the tendency of independently evolved organisms to sometimes take on the same biological traits and forms. A good example of convergent evolution is the grey wolf and the Tasmanian wolf. These two animals evolved independently yet if you were given a set of skulls to identify, chances are you could not tell which one is close relative of the poodle and which one is a close relative of the kangaroo.



If evolution isn't blind then there are theistic implications.

[LostLocke]

That's not "aiming for a target".

[Heywood]

That's not "aiming for a target".

I agree that evolution isn't making a conscious decision to move toward a particular target.....it isn't taking aim. But evolution clearly isn't blind. It is guided by what I call a fitness paradigm.

[Whateverist]

I believe the point of convergent evolution is that similar circumstances will result in similar adaptions. Variability is blind, but which traits are advantageous will be determined by the fit to the current environment. So evolution is not evidence of any teleology. Nature by way of evolution is not aiming toward certain designs. But it stands to reason that what is advantageous in one place will also be so in other, isolated locations so long as the relevant circumstances are similar. I don't really see what you find contradictory.

[Heywood]

I believe the point of convergent evolution is that similar circumstances will result in similar adaptions. Variability is blind, but which traits are advantageous will be determined by the fit to the current environment. So evolution is not evidence of any teleology. Nature by way of evolution is not aiming toward certain designs. But it stands to reason that what is advantageous in one place will also be so in other, isolated locations so long as the relevant circumstances are similar. I don't really see what you find contradictory.

I wouldn't say nature is aiming for certain forms(design is not good word choice me thinks). I would say nature is guided by the fit to the current environment(what I call a fitness paradigm) toward producing specific forms.

From a theistic perspective, God (or any sufficient intellect for that matter) can create whatever is desired by designing the fitness paradigm to guide evolution toward that form.

I will go out on a limb and speculate that you can not simulate evolution which resembles the natural evolution we observe without designing a fitness paradigm.

[Esquilax]

Convergent Evolution is strong evidence that natural evolution does home in on specific targets. Convergent evolution is the tendency of independently evolved organisms to sometimes take on the same biological traits and forms. A good example of convergent evolution is the grey wolf and the Tasmanian wolf. These two animals evolved independently yet if you were given a set of skulls to identify, chances are you could not tell which one is close relative of the poodle and which one is a close relative of the kangaroo.

On the one hand, congrats on actually knowing that convergent evolution exists, there are a lot of theists who don't, and don't care that they don't.

On the other, I sure do wish you had a better understanding of it. Convergent evolution doesn't demonstrate that specific evolutionary targets are being aimed for, you've got that ass backwards. What it shows is that certain bodily forms are versatile and useful in multiple situations. This isn't evidence that the wolf "form" is being aimed at, but that it's a useful body type to have.

Aside from being similar, there's no connection between the two. They just evolved toward a more "correct" shape for their settings, that happened to be similar.

If evolution isn't blind then there are theistic implications.

Now that you understand it better, do you still think this?

[Heywood]

On the one hand, congrats on actually knowing that convergent evolution exists, there are a lot of theists who don't, and don't care that they don't.

On the other, I sure do wish you had a better understanding of it. Convergent evolution doesn't demonstrate that specific evolutionary targets are being aimed for, you've got that ass backwards. What it shows is that certain bodily forms are versatile and useful in multiple situations. This isn't evidence that the wolf "form" is being aimed at, but that it's a useful body type to have.

Aside from being similar, there's no connection between the two. They just evolved toward a more "correct" shape for their settings, that happened to be similar.

Now that you understand it better, do you still think this?

I never claimed that evolution isn't blind because it is aiming. I am claiming that evolution isn't blind because it is guided. There is a big difference.

[Whateverist]

I will go out on a limb and speculate that you can not simulate evolution which resembles the natural evolution we observe without designing a fitness paradigm.

That's not really much of a risk since there is no way to test or falsify what you're saying. Given your assumption that all life is already imbued with this special 'fitness paradigm', how would you suggest we go about testing evolution without it? You've just inserted god where none is needed. Why do you think the natural requires the supernatural to prop it up?

[Heywood]

That's not really much of a risk since there is no way to test or falsify what you're saying. Given your assumption that all life is already imbued with this special 'fitness paradigm', how would you suggest we go about testing evolution without it? You've just inserted god where none is needed. Why do you think the natural requires the supernatural to prop it up?

Fitness paradigm isn't something imbued in life. The fitness paradigm is simply the mechanism which determines what is fit and what isn't.

And my speculation can be falsified by simulating evolution without designing a fitness paradigm.

[max-greece]

Creatures performing similar roles within an eco-system evolve similar solutions to the problems, sometimes....

Whilst one can point to the Tasmanian Tiger and the Wolf to see similar forms from very different beginnings there are also marked differences - particularly in the dentition, breeding, jaw design, behaviour.....

In other words you are interpreting similarities based on being human. No wolf would mistake a Tasmanian Tiger for another wolf. Its a largely superficial similarity based on body shape and head shape.

We might, of course, if we are expecting guidance, expect to see more similarities that we do. There's nothing today that resembles a T-Rex - even a small one nor is there anything that resembles the pterasaur, the giant carniverous pigs of north america and so on.

What we have is a mix of unique solutions and solutions that recur throughout the evolution of animals. I can't see why this would show guidance. If it did - what was the aim of the guidance? It certainly hasn't hurried evolution along (bearing in mind life is around 4 billion years old and multicellular life didn't appear for 3.5 billion years).

Nor has this guidance improved the survival ratios of species. As it stands (depending on who you ask) between 98 and 99.8% of all the creatures that have ever lived have gone extinct. If that is the result of guidance then the whole thing is being guided by a cretin.

To be honest what I think you are doing here is seeing evidence that supports your theory, whilst, ignoring the mass of evidence against it. Just my point of view, of course YMMV.