Richard Dawkin's big blunder

[Chas]

You could save us all time and just tell us what you think it means.

By "blind" I think Dawkins means evolution isn't destined to produce a particular outcome....that there is no component of an evolutionary system which looks ahead. He demonstrates this by replicating evolution which has looked ahead because he can't replicate cumulative selection otherwise. He makes an assertion which is completely contradicted by his example. Why should I or anyone believe his assertion?

Maybe you can watch the video again and tell us what you think he means.

You still don't understand Dawkins's examples. He is most definitely not "replicating evolution". That is a basic problem with your argument.
The examples are to demonstrate aspects of the mechanisms of evolution. One (weasel) shows the power of cumulative change vs. random, all at once change; the other (biomorphs) shows how simple rules can result in complex forms.

Your argument is utterly flawed by your misunderstanding.

[pocaracas]

Great analogy - I am stealing it for sure!

It's gotta be great, it's by Douglas Adams

I knew the analogy existed, but I didn't know who said it first. Thank you, sir!

[Bittersmart]

Now you're not making any sense. A river forms banks based upon gravitational pull and electromagnetism causing the atoms of the river and the banks to be unable to share space. Organisms form based upon random mutations which are then selected due to their benefit towards survival. It's natural processes guiding both.

The point is in replicating a river you don't have to do anything other than let the laws of physics operate on matter. Dump a large amount of water on the ground and something like a river will form.

Replicating Darwinian evolution is not so easy. You have to contrive a selection mechanism. You have to make a judgment about what is going to be a benefit towards survival and what isn't. You cannot replicate Darwinian evolution without making these conscious decisions....at least I haven't seen it. Dawkins' admittedly couldn't do it.

I agree with you that both processes are guided and are natural. Where I disagree is in the assertion that both processes are blind.

Evolution is just the same. It operates just the same way a river would form, it's just more complex with many more variables. They are both products of the natural world operating under natural laws, nothing more. The reason we see convergent evolution is because some basic features provide more adaptability to creatures, that's all. They are blind processes without any goal in mind or any guidance needed. Honestly, it would be strange not to see any similarities between any animals on Earth. Furthermore, even if you could shape an environment to try and select a trait in an animal, there is no guarantee it would actually happen. You might just end up killing the species instead. Or it might evolve a much different adaptation, as long as it survives.

[Mudhammam]

Heywood seems to be arguing that the hole in the ground was designed for the puddle so that the water would fit perfectly onto it.

Great analogy - I am stealing it for sure!

Ditto.

But really he's saying, "No, no, not the puddle.. I'm here! And I'm asking a question so it must mean I'm made of some special stuff... that could only come about by even more special means than anything else in nature!"

And that's pretty much what evolution explains...if he had bothered to try to understand it.

[Alex K]

Great analogy - I am stealing it for sure!

Ditto.

But really he's saying, "No, no, not the puddle.. I'm here! And I'm asking a question so it must mean I'm made of some special stuff... that could only come about by even more special means than anything else in nature!"

And that's pretty much what evolution explains...if he had bothered to try to understand it.

And it's verbatim the fallacy which Adams describes in his talk.

[Mudhammam]

Ditto.

But really he's saying, "No, no, not the puddle.. I'm here! And I'm asking a question so it must mean I'm made of some special stuff... that could only come about by even more special means than anything else in nature!"

And that's pretty much what evolution explains...if he had bothered to try to understand it.

And it's verbatim the fallacy which Adams describes in his talk.

Is there a link to his talk?

I got about 3/4 way through The Hitchhiker's Guide. Such a great book though I kick myself for never having finished it.

[Alex K]

Is there a link to his talk?

I've linked to it on the last page of this very thread, there is audio and also a transscript available.

[Mudhammam]

Is there a link to his talk?

I've linked to it on the last page of this very thread, there is audio and also a transscript available.

Gotcha, I must've missed it when I was skimming through.

[Mister Agenda]

Replicating Darwinian evolution is not so easy. You have to contrive a selection mechanism. You have to make a judgment about what is going to be a benefit towards survival and what isn't.

No you don't. If it replicates and it is not perfect, it will adapt to whatever the conditions are or die out, regardless of what you have in mind.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Which component "looks ahead"? The God of the Gaps component?

Good question.

If you read this entire thread, you will see a post of mine where I respond to Alex regarding targets and selection criterion. In it I substitute Dawkins' "methinks" sentence for a simpler one. I give an example of a selection criterion that would select for the exact sentence "I am". If you look at that selection criterion you will see that it is really just a description of the target.

In a sense the fitness paradigm is just a description or blue print which evolution follows to build a particular product.

This is shoehorning "intelligent design" into the theory. The only "blueprints" in evolution is the DNA formed by natural selection.

Survival of the fittest is not a blueprint. Your language here is presumptive of an intelligence you wish to see "directing" the process, which simply isn't there, you continue
making semantic leaps and gymnastics to arrive at the desired assertion: Evolution is simply another term for intelligent design.

It isn't. There are no goals or choices, only adaptation.

I'm starting to think you're not capable of understanding a complex, natural process without the assumption that there's an intelligent anthropomorphic force behind it. Which is fine as an intro model, of for Artificial Selection, but I think you're missing the obvious: natural selection over 3.5 billion years doesn't require blueprints, a designer, or intelligence.


As far as replicating evolution, you've been shown before that Bacteria have evolved and adapted dramatically since the introduction of antibiotics. You keep repeating misinformation about evolution being "difficult to recreate" in a laboratory setting, when a simple google search would show you it is, and has been.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/11/...ever-stops

This article in particular shows evolution continues WITHOUT natural selection pressure.