> As for your self-replicating pixel-drawing program that can evolve to a web browser -- you are more than welcome to have a go at it. I can tell you from now t

> As for your self-replicating pixel-drawing program that can evolve to a web browser -- you are more than welcome to have a go at it. I can tell you from now that it will fail. There's a simpler experiment, that will also fail: http://www.randommutation.com/darwinianevolution.htm http://www.randommutation.com/darwinianevolution.htm That's a flawed example for several reasons. The main one is that the selection is based on a target (the new word) or is considered over too short a timespan. Even worse is that you are getting random variation in every generation, which is actually against the principle of evolution. In your cited example the whole chain would die out very quickly - favouring chains that mutated more slowly. My example is better because the end product is irrelevant; the code becomes a program. Programs that are "better" in some ambiguous way will be used more frequently. Over time the most useful programs will evolve; but only over millions of generations. The end product is uncertain; but according to Darwinian theory it would fit the environment (so, if we had no internet there would be no network scanner to evolve). > Yet another instance of hand waving. You might think it is possible, but until you prove it, I will claim that this is an unscientific claim. I'm sorry but what is unprovable about mutation; this is one of the aspects we have observed! Both at a cellular and DNA level. > The part that is often overlooked, even though it is so crucial, is the lack of evidence for whether mutations have the ability to actually produce any useful set of variations for NS to act on. Most of your argument seems based on the idea that a mutation can produce a change/feature - but that it cannot be shown empirically that good changes/features have or can occur. This does not seem logical at all; you are basically arguing that it is impossible to a random mutation to have a positive effect on the offspring. This is incorrect; the mutation inarguably, as you agree, can produce a change - so at some point a positive change must occur (even if it is entirely unlikely). As I am sure you appreciate; subtle improvements take a long time to take effect. That we exist in this form is highly improbable - but that is not dis-proof of the theory. Please bear in mind I am just trying to be helpful here - not making any criticism of how informed you are. However you do not appear to be schooled in Darwinian theory because: > Darwin focused on NS so much, but that's because he assumed that NS is the force that drives the variations. Is 100% counter to what Evolution says. > If you really think about it, he's making an analogy with market competition He's not. In the slightest. He is making an empirical observation that animal survival is related to competing with others. NS is the process by which organisms with inheritable mutations that favour them survive longer and slowly mix their genes into the species. The process of stacking mutations in sequence to achieve what we are today is complex and highly unlikely; but not impossible. That is the point Evolution makes. I don't see a counter explanation with such solid theory, that is all.