Richard Dawkin's big blunder

[Whateverist]

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.

Are you pulling my leg?

[Chad32]

If there are similarities to isolated cases, it's likely that some things just objectively work better than others. It doesn't prove supernatural design. It just proves the efficiency of some solutions.

[Heywood]

If there are similarities to isolated cases, it's likely that some things just objectively work better than others. It doesn't prove supernatural design. It just proves the efficiency of some solutions.

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. Human beings or any other intellects that might exist can use evolution as a creative tool because it isn't a blind process as suggested by Dawkins. Design the fitness paradigm and evolution will produce an intended product.

[Esquilax]

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.

Evolution is guided in the same way that a river is guided by its banks. These are natural processes informing the shape of evolutions to come. Since nature has no sight, there is no sense in which natural selection- the real name for your "fitness paradigm,"- is not blind.

Though to be honest, you're kind of arguing against a metaphor here. It's a bit silly.

[Chas]

---

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.

---

No one at TTA was butthurt but you.

You do not understand evolution - Dawkins is not wrong. There is no guidance, intent, goal, or direction to evolution.

You can continue to try to insert intelligence into it, but you have been, and will continue to be, unsuccessful.
Why? Because you are wrong.

[Heywood]

Evolution is guided in the same way that a river is guided by its banks. These are natural processes informing the shape of evolutions to come. Since nature has no sight, there is no sense in which natural selection- the real name for your "fitness paradigm,"- is not blind.

Yes evolution is guided in the same way that a river is guided by it banks. The path of river is not blind. If it was you would not be able to predict where its is going to go.

I use "fitness paradigm" instead of "natural selection" because there are types of evolution in which "natural selection" isn't a good description. Memetic evolution uses selection guided by intellect and using the term natural selection in a discussion about memetic evolution would be inaccurate. "Fitness Paradigm" is just a term I coined as a generic term for any kind of selection mechanism.

[Chas]

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.

Your 'fitness paradigm' is a chimera. There is only differential reproductive success.

And of course we can't create a simulation without designing it. That has absolutely nothing to do with what we are simulating.


N.B. It's "Dawkins's".

[Esquilax]

Yes evolution is guided in the same way that a river is guided by it banks. The path of river is not blind. If it was you would not be able to predict where its is going to go.

I use "fitness paradigm" instead of "natural selection" because there are types of evolution in which "natural selection" isn't a good description. Memetic evolution uses selection guided by intellect and using the term natural selection in a discussion about memetic evolution would be inaccurate. "Fitness Paradigm" is just a term I coined as a generic term for any kind of selection mechanism.

We already have a generic term for selection mechanisms. It's called "selection mechanisms."

As for any selection that is guided by intelligence, that's called artificial selection, and it's as old as animal domestication.

[Alex K]

If there are similarities to isolated cases, it's likely that some things just objectively work better than others. It doesn't prove supernatural design. It just proves the efficiency of some solutions.

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. Human beings or any other intellects that might exist can use evolution as a creative tool because it isn't a blind process as suggested by Dawkins. Design the fitness paradigm and evolution will produce an intended product.

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.

[Heywood]

We already have a generic term for selection mechanisms. It's called "selection mechanisms."

As for any selection that is guided by intelligence, that's called artificial selection, and it's as old as animal domestication.

"fitness paradigm" sounds cooler.