Nose, I know I posted this on another board where you're also having this discussion, but I think the folks here might be more-able to address the issues you are presenting (and the points that I am trying to show you).
(Also, please don't think I'm following you around. I specifically avoided posting in this thread up until now so you didn't get that impression... although you have my gratitude for helping me find this forum!)
Anyway...
Maybe I'm seeing where you're getting confused now.
As you have said, quantum theory tells us that the state of an atom is indeterminant until it is observed by an outside source.
For anyone else here that is not familiar with this idea, look up Schrdinger's cat. To make it simple, the idea is that if you put a cat into a solid box with a vial of poison that will open 1 minute after you close the box, then at some point, the cat could be said to be both dead AND alive. The idea behind this is that the state of the cat's life is not known until you open the box and look.
However, Schrdinger wasn't trying to say that cats can be both alive AND dead at the same time. He was only trying to say that we don't know until we observe the status of the cat. (although if you're more familiar with the situation, you know he was also trying to point out the flaw he saw in the theory of other scientists)
Nose, to make your point, you seem to be applying this principle in such a manner as to suggest that, at any one moment, Schrdinger could have pointed at the box and said "the cat is dead", without actually looking inside (a determined quantum outcome without observation). Of course, this isn't possible... however, you are twisting that logic a little bit.
You seem to think that the observation drives the conclusion. This is incorrect. In quantum mechanics, the observation only identifies the conclusion. To elaborate; at some point in time, Schrdinger's cat would die inside the box. The fact that nobody witnessed the event does not change the fact that it happened. We only identify that it happened when we open the box. Our observation did not cause the death, it only identified it.
Now, as it has already been said, evolution is not random. Mutations in genetic code may be random (although some are actually quite orderly with the assertion of a particular gene's dominance)... however, no change in the genetic code (orderly OR random) will result in the evolution of the species unless the change facilitates survival or reproduction.
Now, please, don't just post up another tangent. You have people taking the time to intelligently address your ideas... you owe it to them to address their responses before taking off on another point.
Edited by Jester4kicks, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2