One doesn't have to get into issues of simultaneity in order to
find and understand my objection to Lloyd's claim that Dawkins
subscribed to his Claim #6. One merely has to look at what
Claim #6 entails ("all biological differences" and "all speciation")
to see that the quote provided from Dawkins does not establish
that Dawkins subscribes to that view, and actually provides
evidence that Dawkins disagrees with that view.
What the Dawkins quote establishes is that, for Dawkins, NS is the
only sufficient explanation for *adaptation* that biologists have.
*Non-adaptive* change may occur via other means. For example, Dawkins
would likely disagree strongly that "all speciation" must happen via
NS. Dawkins would also likely demur from the view that all the
sequence differences noted in molecules like cytochrome-c are due to
adaptive change. Since we can find that not "all speciation" nor "all
biological differences" are likely to be endorsed as due to NS by
Dawkins, the claim that Dawkins does so endorse is merely farcical and
amusing. Especially given the quote that indicates rather the opposite.
Wesley