Which makes the argument even much more preposterous--a finer contradiction of logic we will seldom see. The statement has been made by Dawkins, by Dawkins, by Dawkins, over and over and over and over. Yes, we believe that Dawkins believes that Natural Selection always Ã¢â‚¬Å“choosesÃ¢â‚¬Â for life or survival of the species and is not random.
Natural selection isn't based on random chance. Random chance occurs at the mutation stage.
Some of us have issues with Ã¢â‚¬Å“itÃ¢â‚¬Â or Ã¢â‚¬Å“Natural SelectionÃ¢â‚¬Â Ã¢â‚¬Å“choosingÃ¢â‚¬Â something that is really not a choice in the strictest since of the word. It is internally illogical that something that is not alive could Ã¢â‚¬Å“chooseÃ¢â‚¬Â life. Where is the evidence that so called Ã¢â‚¬Å“natural selectionÃ¢â‚¬Â has ever left Ã¢â‚¬Å“ideaÃ¢â‚¬Â status? But, let's play the game.
Dawkins uses the idea, Ã¢â‚¬Å“Natural SelectionÃ¢â‚¬Â as if it is both random and not random (laws of Ã¢â‚¬Å“natureÃ¢â‚¬Â are not random). He also uses Ã¢â‚¬Å“Natural Selection as if it is sentient. He says that natural Selection is not a live being but infers that Ã¢â‚¬Å“itÃ¢â‚¬Â has lifelike qualities. Somehow, Ã¢â‚¬Å“itÃ¢â‚¬Â knows the difference between death and life and always chooses life. I wonder could it be a virus? Obviously, It would seem to to be random if it "chose" death some of the time. So to cover that prevarication, Dawkins and evoÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s never consider death a Ã¢â‚¬Å“choiceÃ¢â‚¬Â even though plenty of things die. Acknowledging that would make natural selection seem to random? When has Ã¢â‚¬Å“Natural SelectionÃ¢â‚¬Â chosen for an organism or species not to live? All the time!! But no, ignore all the dead critters everywhere on the forest floor. EvoÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s hero Ã¢â‚¬Å“Natural Selection Ã¢â‚¬Â only chooses for survival. If something dies, to bad. But evoÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s hero canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t be associated with death. ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s negative PR! We are supposed to ignore all the critters that die. Nope, donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t blame Ã¢â‚¬Å“Natural Selection for death that would make natural selection seem to... to random.
Evolution is a prevarication upon a prevarication. When one prevarication is exposed, evoÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Just fabricate another prevarication to deal with the one people see holes in. Someday the whole house of cards is going to fall exposing it for what it is an incredible prevarication upon a prevarication ad-nauseam.
Laws like gravity are always constant in how they act on objects. Inferring or saying Ã¢â‚¬Å“Natural SelectionÃ¢â‚¬Â is a law adds to the confusion over the issue of evolution.
Where is the prestidigitation? Take a look at the meaning of mutation (random). What evo scientists have done is emphasize that mutation (random) comes before Ã¢â‚¬Å“Natural Selection.Ã¢â‚¬Â Voila! Natural selection is no longer random even though the effect is the same! ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s like saying, Ã¢â‚¬Å“I am not saying what I am saying.Ã¢â‚¬Â Ã¢â‚¬Å“Natural SelectionÃ¢â‚¬Â Ã¢â‚¬Å“selectsÃ¢â‚¬Â from a random? Sounds like Ã¢â‚¬Å“randomÃ¢â‚¬Â by any other name. Spin!