Richard Dawkin's big blunder

[max-greece]

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.

Moving the goalposts much? We were talking about targets and now we are talking about potential targets. Anything and everything can be a potential target.

As someone has already indicated on this thread the target is survival for the species. It is a target that is usually (98-99.8%) missed and the species went extinct.

If human beings eventually get into space in a big way so that there are generations that are born, live and die there and they adapt to their new surroundings is that proof of a potential target? In your worldv-iew it is.

At the same time if one isolated group of people living by the river deep in the Amazonian Rain forest spend so much time in the river they start to develop webbed feet is that a potential target? - Why yes.

Sorry dude - its still a nonsense - whatever you think you must conclude.

[Heywood]

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.

I said evolution is not inconsistent with a theistic world view. I never said it did not contradict any religious tenets.

---

Moving the goalposts much? We were talking about targets and now we are talking about potential targets. Anything and everything can be a potential target.

This would be true is evolution were truly blind. However since evolution is guided not everything can be realized.

[Jovanian Teapot]

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.

I said evolution is not inconsistent with a theistic world view. I never said it did not contradict any religious tenets.

---

Moving the goalposts much? We were talking about targets and now we are talking about potential targets. Anything and everything can be a potential target.

This would be true is evolution were truly blind. However since evolution is guided not everything can be realized.

Nothing factual is inconsistent with a religious world view because the religious worldview itself is not based in anything factual, but rather based on blind conjecture in regards to the nature of the universe.

You keep rambling about how evolution is guided. It seems like you have personified natural selection to be something supernatural.
What is evolution guided by?
As has been expressed, it seems to be guided by survivability. What is it that you are not understanding?
I doubt you actually read my entire post just as much as I doubt that you actually went and read those books I recommended.

[Heywood]

I doubt you actually read my entire post just as much as I doubt that you actually went and read those books I recommended.

You mean those books you recommended to me 30 minutes ago? Sorry I just haven't got around too it.

[Alex K]

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

For the V1 not so much, but in the case of the V2 yes, WvB's goal was going to the moon from the very start. But that's beside the point

[Chas]

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.

Go read about the Lenski bacteria experiments, especially the section "Evolution of aerobic citrate usage in one population".

This is a clear demonstration of a well-designed experiment and actual evolution, i.e. no goals, no intention, no guidance, no magic.

---

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.

Every living thing on Earth. Since you can't demonstrate they aren't, I'm forced to conclude they are.

See how stupid that sounds? You really are stuck on your utterly bass ackwards misunderstanding of what a constructed demonstration of one aspect of a natural process is versus the whole process.

[Esquilax]

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

So... what the fuck are you even asking for? If every beneficial evolution is a target to you, and evolution selects for beneficial mutations, then how can anyone possibly falsify what you're saying?

If it can't be falsified, then it's not honest; all you're doing is enfolding everything I say into your answer, but what is it you're actually looking for? What would "evolution without a target," even look like, to you?

If you can't tell us that, then you haven't even got a question worth answering. You've just got a lump of question-begging calling evolutionary "first" every time we give you an example. It's dishonest.

[max-greece]

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.

I said evolution is not inconsistent with a theistic world view. I never said it did not contradict any religious tenets.

---

Moving the goalposts much? We were talking about targets and now we are talking about potential targets. Anything and everything can be a potential target.

This would be true is evolution were truly blind. However since evolution is guided not everything can be realized.

I will have one more go at this to see how honest you are being in your inability to see how ridiculous you are being.



This pig-like creature lived in India about 55 million years ago. It was about the size of a domestic cat.

What did it become?

If you know that's fine - but are you really claiming its off-spring were potentially predictable? A potential target? Guided design?

What designer - if aiming for the target state of today's creatures (its offspring) would start from here?

[jesus_wept]

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

[LostLocke]

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

Which would leave you with the concept that every species that exists, has existed, and will exist is a target. Kinda makes the whole concept of a target useless and practically infinite.