+ "Also, since the code for the DNA is the same for all living things, then it directly
+ suggests that a common programming technique is used to program all living
+reality... "

*Yes it does, that's exactly what Darwin observed, and he realised that the programming
*mechanism...

++..and "precisely" what is the "programming mechanism"!?

**This is basic theory. How can you discuss this stuff without understanding the theory?
**The mechanism is that there is a simple replicating life form. Any one of a number of physical processes impacts on the structure, which means that the offspring are slightly different. If the changes are an improvement, they will be more likely to replicate, if less able, they will fall by the wayside**

*...was the mechanism of evolution.



++Clearly evolution looks like a change in code , but the specific processes in
++terms of how that code changes and/or is re-programmed is what is not clearly
++explained by DE within reasonable and straight forward logic!!!

**It is! Do you need a link for a good explanation?



*It was subsequently confirmed that the programming operating system was the DNA string.

++First of all, the DNA string to a wave/information theorist like me looks
++much more like two cross polarized encoded waves (that create a 3D space)
++and not as an operating system. Thaty would make it more like part of a network
++and/or communications system rather than an operating system!

**Its just a long link of units, just like a ram chip is a long link of bits.
**It carries informations a bit like an Abacus does.



++Dave do you know what an operating system is?

**Of course.




*Through billions of gradual itterations, tests, failures and successes,
*the program has
*refined itself, multiplied itself, and improved itself in millions of different *directions.

++That is just an "abstract" statement that is pretty much meaningless to me!!!

**Its not abstract at all. Look out the window. Everything that moves or grows
**is little machines working with
**a DNA operating system.




++First, all evidence suggests that programs don't just refine themselves
++without programmers. If that was the case I would just fire or let go all of my ++programmers that are right now programming my various virtual reality spaces! LOL

**Your programmers are there because of evolution. Evolution is indeed a type of self **refining program, that's why it took so long to understand.



++Second, when a program is in execution (running) it provides feedback to
++the programmer(s) in terms of how it (the code) is working, error conditions,
++infinite loops, crash modes, etc, etc, but the code is usually changed off
++line and not necessarily when in execution mode...

**Good point. But the feedback part of evolution is whether the program is
**successful or not, ie a successful reproductor. It is not a concious evolution,
**like reprogramming a computer as you want.




++In terms of the number of itterations, maybe you are confusing execution with ++programming!!!

**There are 6 billion human itterations walking and thinking today!