Richard Dawkin's big blunder

[max-greece]

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.

There were not targets at the time of the first developments. Obviously with the benefit of hindsight they appear like targets when patently they weren't.

What you are asking for is an example of development without an endpoint - which would be whatever stage that development is at now. That is logically impossible unless there is something which has had no development.

In other words your request makes no sense.

[Ryantology]

I think evolution is awesome. I wish everyone accepted it as it is certainly not contradictory to a theistic world view.

By definition, nothing can be contradictory to a worldview that has the freedom to move the goalposts anytime a potential contradiction presents itself.

A worldview which can be redefined on a whim is a worldview lacking any legitimate explanatory power or substance, of course.

[downbeatplumb]

Isn't it funny when someone thinks they are much more intelligent than they actually are.

[Heywood]

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.

If it is "good enough", it is contained in the set of targets evolution homes in on.

Dawkins could have wrote his computer program so that it contained 3 targets....any which is good enough.

Target 1, "Methinks it is like a weasel "
Target 2, "Love all trust few do wrong to none "
Target 3, "Hell is empty and all the devils are here"

One of those sentences would evolve and Dawkins would have said it was still a bit of a cheat(because he decided the potential targets).

[pocaracas]

Isn't it funny when someone thinks they are much more intelligent than they actually are.

[Heywood]

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.

There were not targets at the time of the first developments. Obviously with the benefit of hindsight they appear like targets when patently they weren't.

What you are asking for is an example of development without an endpoint - which would be whatever stage that development is at now. That is logically impossible unless there is something which has had no development.

In other words your request makes no sense.

No what I am asking for is a demonstration of cumulative selection that does not require a target.

Those targets you utilized all existed as possible outcomes at the start of the cumulative selection process. Unless you or someone can demonstrate otherwise, I am forced to conclude that cumulative selection seems to require a potential target to exist in order for it to occur.

[Doubting Thomas]

Isn't it funny when someone thinks they are much more intelligent than they actually are.

Mr. Dunning, meet Mr. Kruger.

[pocaracas]

No what I am asking for is a demonstration of cumulative selection that does not require a target.

Those targets you utilized all existed as possible outcomes at the start of the cumulative selection process. Unless you or someone can demonstrate otherwise, I am forced to conclude that cumulative selection seems to require a potential target to exist in order for it to occur.

The target is: survive enough to breed and actually breed.
Whatever accomplishes these two tasks has successfully evolved through one more generation.

[Heywood]

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.

Here is the product of an evolutionary system that is known to have utilized targets(specifically 1:38 on).





The behavior is indistinguishable from this product of an evolutionary system which is asserted by some to be completely blind or sans targets.





Why should I believe that assertion given that evolution with targets has been demonstrated while evolution without targets has not?

[Jovanian Teapot]

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.

Essentially what you ask that i (or others) do is provide a grounds for natural selection without selection mechanisms?
What kind of semantic retardation is this?
As an aside, I have yet to see where your argument has any legs to stand on. Have you provided an example of evolution with a specific target in mind? Not at all, as I see it.
It is surprising to read of a theist who actually reads books on evolution; it is not surprising at all to see that same theist reading only to feed his(or her) confirmation bias.
You seem to have a signature ability to take quotations out of context in order to use them as pawns in your quest to dignify your delusional worldview.
To say that evolution in no way contradicts any religious tenets is false; it seems to me that evolution threw the book of genesis into the fucking grinder.
If you would venture to say that evolution does not prove the non-existence of god;high fucking five kiddo. No reasonable argument could ever prove this negative.
I must say that although you have indeed come to the right forum if you would like your ideas, however radical, to be taken seriously, you have been severely misled if you think that any one person posting here is going to allow you to make claims without providing legitimate evidence to support those claims.

You should probably read more on evolution, so that you have a stronger understanding of it.

I highly encourage you to consider reading these books (as I have read them myself)

What evolution is, by Ernst Mayr

The Tangled Bank: an introduction to Evolution by Carl Zimmer.

Lastly, though it does violence to your worldview, I reccomend
Why Darwin Matters: The case against Intelligent Design by Michael Shermer.

Best of luck in defending your claims with legitimate evidence,