[BroJoeK]

Peter Principle: "What they fail to teach anymore is systems.
All these proposed random changes occurs in system.
Make one random change in your computer system and see what happens.
The system fails, it does not evolve."

Let me remind you of some facts.

First, "random mutations" are not "theory", they are observed & confirmed facts.
Every one of us is born with a small number of more-or-less random mutations, and we will pass those mutations on to our children, if any.
It's one method DNA analysts can tell who a baby's father really is.

Second, most of these mutations are totally harmless, because most of our DNA is "non-coding", sometimes referred to as "junk DNA", so mutations there usually cause no noticeable affects.

And, yes, as you posted, those mutations which do have effects are mostly harmful, which often leads to shortened lives & less reproduction -- hence natural selection.

But a small percentage of mutations can improve survivability, and those get passed on to future generations, and accumulating over many generations, can lead to the beginnings of speciation.

Peter Principle: "Darwins finches “evolved” back to earlier beak types as the environment changed they did not evolve through randomness.
LET ME REPEAT, THERE WAS NO NEW GENETIC INFORMATION."

In fact, there is quite a lot of "new information" within the 15 different species in five different genera called "Darwin's Finches", which are thought to have evolved over the past two million years.
Indeed, since different species normally don't interbreed, and different genera cannot naturally interbreed, the amount of "new information" carried by each Darwin Finch species is necessarily significant.
It would be equivalent to the DNA differences between, for example, today's humans and chimpanzees.

That's why we all need to make a habit on these threads of correcting posters like you, when you blather such nonsense as above: "LET ME REPEAT, THERE WAS NO NEW GENETIC INFORMATION."

The fact of this matter is that every generation has "new information" -- meaning a small number of DNA mutations, mostly harmless, very rarely helpful.
And that is not a hypothesis, it's not a theory, it's not somebody's "doctrine", it is an observed, confirmed fact.

[kjam22]

Its the same mindset that says the universe created itself because it needed to. I don't really believe that very much either. I know its science..... and that's the wonderful thing about science..... It can always change when new science comes along that dis-proves the old science.

A person could just say... "today Scientists believe, but we know that some day they'll believe something else." That would add a little bit of clarity to these type of articles.