The only difference between Dawkins programme and my example is that one came from an evolutionist, one from a Creationist. Ergo, it is a matter of faith and doctrine for an atheist that you support the former and condemn the latter.
There are a lot of differences between the two.
Dawkins was trying to illustrate that what might be impossible by random mutation alone becomes possible when you apply the principle of natural selection.
Close, but no cigar. Dawkins was explaining how
cumulative selection can change an improbable event into a probable even inevitable event.
To do this he had to use a TARGET which was "METHINKS IT IS A WEASEL" and the fact that evolution cannot have a TARGET is the little hidey-hole you bolted down in order to evade the impossibility of evolving a gene. Evolution is random, remember? It isn't trying to build anything. It can't have a TARGET.
There is no predefined target - but there are many many outcomes which are possible by the laws of chemistry, some of which lead to increased reproductive success. Meaning there are many possible 'targets', which are difficult for humans to work out in advance and are certainly not considered by natural processes.
Evolution isn't random - remember! It is not directed by an intelligence - but it is directed by contingency and environment.
™ Version 4.2
