Not about ignorance, because those who repented may repeat the same previous awful things.
Ignorance is a lack of knowledge or understanding. You're saying that a person who repents hasn't learned anything? Why then did they repent if they don't know what was wrong with their past actions?
Lol, did they need reading and writing before hundreds of thousands of years ago?
What we are now is a culmination of all evolutionary changes that happened in both the distant
and recent past. When humans began to read and write, that ability would have exerted its own selective pressures on us because it was beneficial. That would have had an effect on the way our eyes evolved. Was our eyesight the same before we developed reading and writing as it is now? I do not know, nor do I know how we could tell for sure.
Natural process doesn't make sense because there's no escape from involving randomness and chances as a factor in it.
So no, you don't have a test. You also know very well that selection pressures do not allow all genotypes to survive and reproduce equally well. That is how the randomness of mutation is sifted to produce non-random results.
I see it perfect for me, and natural selection doesn't explain why we have the same precision of vision since a little variations
among the population can still survive and pass their genes to the next generations.
Not equally well. As I am about to explain in my next point, two people surviving into adulthood are not necessarily equally fit.
Natural selection doesn't work like that, all who survive will pass their genes to the next generation, those who can't make it
will die and hence their genes won't pass which leads to extinction.
That is not necessarily true, because:
(1) Surviving into adulthood does not automatically guarantee that one will reproduce.
(2) Those that do reproduce do not reproduce equally well (not all people produce the same number of children nor do all children have an equal chance of surviving into adulthood, plus not all children who make it into adulthood will reproduce themselves).
(3) Those that reproduce do not reproduce at the same rate (some are able to acquire mates earlier and reproduce faster than others).
How a computer is compared to a conscious mind ?, your metaphor doesn't work here because computers are programmed.
We are programmed, just not in the same way as computers are. We are programmed by genetics and epigenetics (which give us our instincts) and by our experiences (from which we learn and help us in making active decisions).
Which part is this that supports conscious awareness?
There are probably several parts of the brain involved, but one of the most important regions is probably the cerebrum: infants born without cerebrums (so-called anencephalic infants) are not consciously aware.
The soul can't manage or fix the damaged part of the physical body, exactly like a driver controlling a car, if there's a problem
in the car then the driver will suffer and lose control.
If the mind/soul was like a "driver" of the physical body but not actually a
part of the physical body/brain, then damage to the body/brain should not affect the mind. Sure, you'd expect there to be control impairment, with the body not doing exactly as the mind wants, but you wouldn't expect the mind itself (such as reasoning or conscious-awareness) to be affected just by manipulating the brain (since you seem to be arguing that the mind is separate from the brain). A person's rational thinking ability should not be affected by things like drugs, alcohol or brain damage, yet that is what we see.
Yes because the body is corrupted, again, the car metaphor.
The driver is conscious, the car brakes malfunctioned.
Now even though the driver is conscious but the car shows him not.
If something in the car is broken, that doesn't affect the driver. If something in the brain is broken, that
can affect the mind (as I showed above). That's the difference.