Perhaps you should devote another domain name to the research of evolution. It's absolutely clear to me that you've never taken an anthropology or advanced biology class in your life, from your complete misunderstanding of Synthetic (or hell, even Darwinian) evolution. Your entire argument is based on a logical fallacy called "Begging the question"
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by wikipedia
n logic, begging the question is the term for a type of fallacy occurring in deductive reasoning in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises. For an example of this, consider the following argument: "Politicians cannot be trusted. Only an untrustworthy person would run for office; the fact that politicians are untrustworthy is proof of this. Therefore politicians cannot be trusted." Such an argument is fallacious, because it relies upon its own proposition, in this case, "politicians are untrustworthy", in order to support its central premise. Essentially, the argument assumes that its central point is already proven, and uses this in support of itself; the question remains, "begging" to be answered.
|
While you purport to be asking "questions," I think perhaps you should seek to answer them first yourself before asking others. Asking a question like "How did the ants gain that knowledge" and using a programming metaphor (I too, am a programmer) belies nothing more than a misunderstanding of what evolution is and what it "causes". It is not a sentient being as your God is, but a molding force that passes the successful genetic information down through a population from those who are "successful" (reproduce the most). Failure is not catastrophic, and in fact failures can cascade down generation to generation (much like an omitted semicolon in C-based languages, should you chose to use that metaphor).
So -- my suggestion to you -- read about EVOLUTION, specifically differential reproductive success.