Richard Dawkin's big blunder

[Heywood]

This is the problem with you: you make this assertion that evolution can look ahead, while providing no mechanism through which that can happen. You're all bark and no bite; what process in natural selection "looks ahead" to you? What part of the natural world is making predictions and guiding evolution? For that matter, how does an unconscious environment guide anything?

In the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment, photons "look ahead" in a way that it not understood by physics. Just because a mechanism isn't clearly provided by theory doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You have to look at what you observe and draw conclusions and not be afraid if those conclusions go against your world view.

Convergent evolution exists, this is a fact and it is not in dispute. Convergent evolution is the name given to the phenomena of evolution homing in on particular forms or targets. You can say this is not targeting but rather just the best solution manifesting itself but that is like saying hungry people don't target the buffet, but instead they naturally go to where the food is. All you are doing is re-describing the phenomena with different words because you don't like the connotation of some words. In that process you are blinding yourself to new insights and ideas.

In this thread I gave an example of a selection criterion that is essentially a description of the product that evolution will produce. I would speculate that if one were to know and understand the selection criterion of any evolutionary system in sufficient detail they would be able to predict what products will be derived from that system.

The aggregate of selective pressures are essentially a blue print. Cumulative selection is the mechanism by which that blue print becomes actualized. A process which follows an identifiable plan is not blind. Dawkins is wrong.

[Mudhammam]

In other words, gravity = intelligent falling. >_<

[downbeatplumb]

This is the problem with you: you make this assertion that evolution can look ahead, while providing no mechanism through which that can happen. You're all bark and no bite; what process in natural selection "looks ahead" to you? What part of the natural world is making predictions and guiding evolution? For that matter, how does an unconscious environment guide anything?

In the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment, photons "look ahead" in a way that it not understood by physics. Just because a mechanism isn't clearly provided by theory doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You have to look at what you observe and draw conclusions and not be afraid if those conclusions go against your world view.

Convergent evolution exists, this is a fact and it is not in dispute. Convergent evolution is the name given to the phenomena of evolution homing in on particular forms or targets. You can say this is not targeting but rather just the best solution manifesting itself but that is like saying hungry people don't target the buffet, but instead they naturally go to where the food is. All you are doing is re-describing the phenomena with different words because you don't like the connotation of some words. In that process you are blinding yourself to new insights and ideas.

In this thread I gave an example of a selection criterion that is essentially a description of the product that evolution will produce. I would speculate that if one were to know and understand the selection criterion of any evolutionary system in sufficient detail they would be able to predict what products will be derived from that system.

The aggregate of selective pressures are essentially a blue print. Cumulative selection is the mechanism by which that blue print becomes actualized. A process which follows an identifiable plan is not blind. Dawkins is wrong.

Dawkins is right and you are wrong.
You have been told why many, many times.

This insistence on clinging to an idea that has been disproved is just so very...Christian.

[Phatt Matt s]

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.

I agree with the title of the thread

[Alex K]

How can you agree with the title, when the title isn't a statement? And who is this "Richard Dawkin" anyways?

[Rampant.A.I.]

This is the problem with you: you make this assertion that evolution can look ahead, while providing no mechanism through which that can happen. You're all bark and no bite; what process in natural selection "looks ahead" to you? What part of the natural world is making predictions and guiding evolution? For that matter, how does an unconscious environment guide anything?

In the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment, photons "look ahead" in a way that it not understood by physics. Just because a mechanism isn't clearly provided by theory doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You have to look at what you observe and draw conclusions and not be afraid if those conclusions go against your world view.

Convergent evolution exists, this is a fact and it is not in dispute. Convergent evolution is the name given to the phenomena of evolution homing in on particular forms or targets. You can say this is not targeting but rather just the best solution manifesting itself but that is like saying hungry people don't target the buffet, but instead they naturally go to where the food is. All you are doing is re-describing the phenomena with different words because you don't like the connotation of some words. In that process you are blinding yourself to new insights and ideas.

In this thread I gave an example of a selection criterion that is essentially a description of the product that evolution will produce. I would speculate that if one were to know and understand the selection criterion of any evolutionary system in sufficient detail they would be able to predict what products will be derived from that system.

The aggregate of selective pressures are essentially a blue print. Cumulative selection is the mechanism by which that blue print becomes actualized. A process which follows an identifiable plan is not blind. Dawkins is wrong.

Keep saying "blueprint" until you're blue in the face, that doesn't mean there's a blueprint.

It means the convergent forms are the best adapted for a given environment. There is no outside force "guiding" or "intending" those forms to be arrived at by evolution.

They're simply the best adapted for a given environment. In fact, the length of your over-reaching here, to redefine "convergent forms" as "proof of a blueprint" is a desperate God of the Gaps argument.

Per the earlier example by other posters, what you're arguing is tantamount to "puddles are signs of water's intelligence, as you can see the water intelligently conforms itself to the outline of a ditch."

No, you're witnessing the outcome of physical properties. No blueprints, ID, or magical wizard guiding the process, or assigning intelligence required.

[Heywood]

The only requirements you need for a "fitness paradigm" to emerge are self-replicators that are at the mercy of limited resources. Not exactly the type of design you'd expect from an intelligent engineer.

What is the difference between being selected because of an ability to gather and utilize scarce resources or being selected on an ability to jump high, swim fast, follow a red dot, or beat the mega-man game? They all pretty much look like they are in the same category to me.

Now I know intelligent engineers have contrived the selection criteria of being able to jump high, swim fast, follow a red dot, or beat the mega-man game.....but you would have me believe this one special selection criterion can't be contrived? Rubbish.

Now I know for a fact that evolutionary systems can come into existence when the selection criterion is contrived. This is easily demonstrable. What I am asking you to do is demonstrate that evolutionary systems can come into existence when the selection criterion isn't contrived. Everytime I ask that from this forum....the result is a sound of crickets chirping.

---

Dawkins is right and you are wrong.
You have been told why many, many times.

This insistence on clinging to an idea that has been disproved is just so very...Christian.

The problem I have is that being told I am wrong is not a convincing argument.

Do you believe it when YECs tell you that you are wrong? I hope not.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Do you realize that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?

Simple answer: Those creatures with adaptations best suited to the environment survive to reproduce.

Your answer: Those creatures better adapted to the environment are better adapted because there is a blueprint created by a magical wizard, who guides evolution to create specific morphological adaptations because they were what the wizard intelligently intended them to look like.

[Heywood]

Your answer: Those creatures better adapted to the environment are better adapted because there is a blueprint created by a magical wizard, who guides evolution to create specific morphological adaptations because they were what the wizard intelligently intended them to look like.

I never claimed God is responsible for the "blueprints". I never claimed God is responsible for the existence of this evolutionary system that created us. Go...try to find quotes from me which say such...they aren't there.

I have claimed:

1. Evolution is not a blind process as Dawkins suggested.
2. God or any other sufficient intellect, can use evolution to create specific forms by designing the fitness paradigm(or selection criterion or what ever you want to call it).

[downbeatplumb]

The problem I have is that being told I am wrong is not a convincing argument.

Do you believe it when YECs tell you that you are wrong? I hope not.

Except I personally had already told you why you were wrong along with every other sentient being that has viewed your turgid drivel. And did not want to repeat myself.

But if you insist.

Evolution has same results in similar circumstances because evolutionary pressures are the same.

No goal or guide needed.

This is not a hard concept but you seem to be unable to grasp it.