Richard Dawkin's big blunder

[Mudhammam]

Perhaps I'm reading too much into your convoluted view of natural selection but you seem to project human consciousness onto all of matter, from the collision of every atom to each organism. That is, because humans can guide evolution through artificial selection or design incredibly complex silicon machinery that mimics biological functionality, this implies that consciousness somehow must have manipulated the entire Universe for last the 13.8 billion years.

Humans or any sufficient intellect, can guide evolution to produce specific forms by designing the fitness paradigm and letting natural selection do its thing.

Here is a video of an intellect using a genetic algorithm to evolve a face. The human intellect isn't actively choosing what random image gets bred from and what image doesn't as in the case of artificial selection.

I don't think anybody would argue that point. Humans are very remarkable in many ways. But it's what you want to say beyond that, that causality implies teleology, that more is needed to explain evolution beyond physical laws acting on physical objects; that is what I find grossly unjustified in light of the data.

[Heywood]

I don't think anybody would argue that point. Humans are very remarkable in many ways. But it's what you want to say beyond that, that causality implies teleology, that more is needed to explain evolution beyond physical laws acting on physical objects; that is what I find grossly unjustified in light of the data.

I have never said anything beyond pointing out that intellects can design a fitness paradigm and let evolution produce an intended form. Humans are doing that today. The reason humans can do this is because evolution is not a blind process as suggested by Dawkins.

[Mudhammam]

I don't think anybody would argue that point. Humans are very remarkable in many ways. But it's what you want to say beyond that, that causality implies teleology, that more is needed to explain evolution beyond physical laws acting on physical objects; that is what I find grossly unjustified in light of the data.

I have never said anything beyond pointing out that intellects can design a fitness paradigm and let evolution produce an intended form. Humans are doing that today. The reason humans can do this is because evolution is not a blind process as suggested by Dawkins.

You're misunderstanding Dawkins' point. Evolution is blind in that nature doesn't foresee the effects that physical laws have... At least that is until consciousness emerges.

[Heywood]

I have never said anything beyond pointing out that intellects can design a fitness paradigm and let evolution produce an intended form. Humans are doing that today. The reason humans can do this is because evolution is not a blind process as suggested by Dawkins.

You're misunderstanding Dawkins' point. Evolution is blind in that nature doesn't foresee the effects that physical laws have... At least that is until consciousness emerges.

Negative.....Dawkins was claiming Evolution doesn't home in on targets like his demonstration did.

[Mudhammam]

That is largely the point of the selfish gene theory and his formulation of memes.

---

You're misunderstanding Dawkins' point. Evolution is blind in that nature doesn't foresee the effects that physical laws have... At least that is until consciousness emerges.

Negative.....Dawkins was claiming Evolution doesn't home in on targets like his demonstration did.

Natural selection homes in on targets because it's an eliminative process. But it's still blind in that it does not plan for the future. That's his point. There's no designer beyond physical law. And it's not an intelligent process as brilliant as it may appear to us.

[Heywood]

Natural selection homes in on targets because it's an eliminative process. But it's still blind in that it does not plan for the future. That's his point. There's no designer beyond physical law. And it's not an intelligent process as brilliant as it may appear to us.

Its a mechanistic process that appears not to be able to come into existence without substantive involvement of an intellect. Again I challenge....replicate natural evolution without substantive involvement of an intellect. Can't do it? How about show me evolutionary systems coming into existence without the involvement of an intellect? Can you do that at least?

Every natural phenomena we observe today, we can observe an example of that phenomena coming into existence without an intellect. Want to observe a tornado come into existence without an intellect, park your ass in Kansas for a bit. Where on earth do you go to observe an evolutionary system come into existence?....You have to go to where intellects are making them because they just don't come into existence on their own. Now you would have me believe this one system did come into existence without substantive involvement of an intellect? Why should I believe that?

[Mudhammam]

Its a mechanistic process that appears not to be able to come into existence without substantive involvement of an intellect.

This is pure conjecture. Can you provide an example of biological evolution coming into existence as a result of some intellect? You might be able to point to examples in which man has produced some mechanism analogous to evolution by natural selection, or has manipulated the principles of heredity to artificially breed, but this doesn't serve your argument. It does not demonstrate that intellect is a prerequisite for bringing into existence evolution any more than simulating a tornado is evidence that intelligent forces are responsible for wind patterns.

Again I challenge....replicate natural evolution without substantive involvement of an intellect. Can't do it?

That's a self-contradictory demand. How could a person artificially manufacture "natural evolution" (it would cease to be natural then) if there is no involvement of a person (intellect)?

How about show me evolutionary systems coming into existence without the involvement of an intellect? Can you do that at least?

We don't know exactly how the original self-replicators evolved from simple molecules but the fundamental mysteriousness of it has been solved without appeals to an intelligent designer. It is only the details that have yet to be sketched out.

Every natural phenomena we observe today, we can observe an example of that phenomena coming into existence without an intellect.

Including evolution.

Want to observe a tornado come into existence without an intellect, park your ass in Kansas for a bit. Where on earth do you go to observe an evolutionary system come into existence?....

An evolutionary system as in life itself? Well, that's a different topic altogether and mankind is still a bit ways off on an exact theory. But a tremendous amount of progress has been made and the mysteriousness of it no longer haunts us. Like I said, we have many plausible outlines in biochemistry, it's just the details that need to be filled in.

You have to go to where intellects are making them because they just don't come into existence on their own.

An unjustified assertion. If life is indeed rare, and moreover if it evolves from inanimate matter over millions of years, how would you expect to observe that "naturally"? The best we can do are artificial simulations, in which case some amino acids and other micromolecules have been shown to arise under certain environmental conditions (set up by us, or intellects, of course, but then again, your demand doesn't make sense otherwise) .

Now you would have me believe this one system did come into existence without substantive involvement of an intellect? Why should I believe that?

Because there's no evidence of super beings?

[JuliaL]

Where on earth do you go to observe an evolutionary system come into existence?....You have to go to where intellects are making them because they just don't come into existence on their own. Now you would have me believe this one system did come into existence without substantive involvement of an intellect? Why should I believe that?

Because plausible mechanisms have been proposed (RNA world) which would explain the kickoff of the world's longest lasting unbroken organic chemical reaction. Your observation that we haven't seen new systems of replication with variation arise without intentional intervention is moot if the only intellects we have ever witnessed are the result of natural, unintelligent, processes.
I'd rather say that in the production of replicating, evolving systems, intellect is sufficient but its necessity is unproven.

In answer to the OP point about convergent evolution:
Convergent evolution requires intelligence to guide it as much as rain requires intelligence to find the river which takes it back to the ocean. Intelligence might do the job, but gravity is the simpler explanation.

[pocaracas]

Hospitals: MRSA.

[Esquilax]

Its a mechanistic process that appears not to be able to come into existence without substantive involvement of an intellect. Again I challenge....replicate natural evolution without substantive involvement of an intellect. Can't do it? How about show me evolutionary systems coming into existence without the involvement of an intellect? Can you do that at least?

You now have exactly two options: you can either accept that all natural evolution is evolution without the involvement of an intellect (until such an intellect can be demonstrated behind it, of course), or you can assert that natural evolution is the product of an intellect too, whereupon you are begging the question until you can demonstrate that intellect.

Which will you choose; honesty, or the fallacy?

Every natural phenomena we observe today, we can observe an example of that phenomena coming into existence without an intellect. Want to observe a tornado come into existence without an intellect, park your ass in Kansas for a bit. Where on earth do you go to observe an evolutionary system come into existence?....You have to go to where intellects are making them because they just don't come into existence on their own. Now you would have me believe this one system did come into existence without substantive involvement of an intellect? Why should I believe that?

If you want to see an evolutionary process without an intellect behind it, just go watch any non-domesticated animal breed.

Unless, that is, you want to start begging the question.

To be absolutely clear here, we don't have to run, because you aren't chasing us. If you want to assert that evolution in the natural world is the result of an intelligence, you'd better damn well start demonstrating that if you want us to treat it like a problem. Otherwise, that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.