If someone were to post a question about day/night cycles and one of the replies is written assuming that the earth is flat would you expect that to be down voted?
Wrong answers will be down voted, and your answer is wrong. That's not bias, it's fact.
You added a comment saying there are 5 articles and 4 books but that is not a citation. A citation is something like Book X, Edition Y, Page Z where Professor A says that "B C D".
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - and you are not providing that.
Many people using this site have a scientific background, we know how to read claims and cross reference articles. We also know what the consensus scientific literature on something like this is. For example we know that genetic algorithms work - people use them all the time in various fields of computing.
I remember as a kid back in the late 80s playing around with a computer program that had simulated creatures running around on a field eating food. Their behavior allowed them to breed and mutate and compete and even that very simple simulation had surprisingly sophisticated behaviors emerge.
I'm sorry you feel attacked about this - but please remember none of this is aimed personally at you. If you bring pseudo-science to a real-science question it will get shot down in the same way someone suggesting psionics, the flying spaghetti monster, or astral projection will.
There are plenty of stack exchanges (including this one if it is phrased correctly) where you can go to ask questions about evolution and hopefully work out where you have been misled. There are certainly areas where our (meaning both individuals here and the wider scientific community) understanding can be improved, so further research there would be most welcome. If you come in assuming that millions of scientists and engineers over hundreds of years have got it wrong than you're going to need some very compelling evidence though.
For example in one of your comments you said:
What I was essentially saying is that, due to the nature of mutations, you cannot get from a simple bacteria (the genetic equivalent of a 3-page instruction manual written in grammatically incorrect Chinese) to a human (the genetic equivalent of a 3,000 page tome written in grammatically correct English)
This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how genetics works - if the bacteria's instruction manual was grammatically incorrect they would die.
Additionally I could trivially write an algorithm using only random mutations and selection that would turn any input text you like into any output text you like. It would only take a few minutes to write, although for a long text it might take a while to run.