The problem is that complexity is not emerging. It is being injected externally through the human input, so contradicts Dawkin's argument.

The complexity is absolutely emergent, the person selecting can easily see that selecting the same offspring every time is just as likely to produce complex results as carefully curating the offspring selection.

Dawkins example is just a mediocre programmers attempt to point at the idea, there are many other more competent examples in computer science. Cellular automata such as Conway's game of life being a painfully obvious example.

I get the impression you are trying not to understand so as to be able to disagree, rather than trying to understand and then disagreeing.

Regardless of the motivations, working to avoid understanding has never been a winning strategy, at least in the long run.

let's take conway's CA as an example

in that case you only get complex functionality through human engineering

if you just dump a bunch of random pixels on the screen you'll get nifty looking chaos and some simple mechanisms like gliders

but to get something like game of life in the game of life, you need incredibly complex human engineering

i am really trying to understand, and have purchased and am reading through dawkins book

but the logic just does not seem to go through