> This is basic theory. How can you discuss this stuff without understanding the theory?
Using my brain!
> The mechanism is that there is a simple replicating life form.
..and what is that simple replicating life form? You mean DNA? The way that I see it that is just two cross polarized waves! The "code" is the key...
> Any one of a number of physical processes impacts on the structure, which means
> that the offspring are slightly different.
Dave, does the above statement seem "logic" to you? Like exactly how do the various physical processes relate to the replication itself?
> If the changes are an improvement, they will be more likely to replicate, if less
> able, they will fall by the wayside
I suppose that by improvement you mean survival and falling by the wayside you mean death!!!???
> It is! Do you need a link for a good explanation?
Well, note that I have already read several DE links including portions of Richard Dawkins - The Ancestor's Tale, and the "stuff" is still senseless to me! Like he tries to paint some sort of a "make believe" story in terms of time, for example, but I know "time" to be much different than what he suggests!!!
> Its just a long link of units, just like a ram chip is a long link of bits.
That, of course, completely ignores how memory is well structured in a computer! Even Random Access Memory (RAM) has a very well understood structure...
> It carries informations a bit like an Abacus does.
Well, a bit, word and/or packet carry information based on their specific structures...The bigger the structure the more info/data but also the higher probability of errors...
> Its not abstract at all. Look out the window. Everything that moves or grows
> is little machines working with a DNA operating system.
Well, I just looked outside my window and ONLY saw a few cars moving and a guy on a bike! But now just saw a few birds flying, that is a very good thing since I like birds...
> Your programmers are there because of evolution. Evolution is indeed a type of self
> refining program,
Now that is "circular logic" at its best! You seem to be pretty good at that!!!
> that's why it took so long to understand.
If you really understood, you could also replicate it!
> 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.
First of all, I don't "want" anything per say! I just look at the various evidence of things and use my brain to process the information and data!!!
BTW, a successful reproductor would mean a "dominant" reproductor and that is certainly
not random at all! So, for example, if I am a successful reproductor, I will take no chances...DE theory is contradictory on this aspect and also on many other aspects...
> There are 6 billion human itterations walking and thinking today!
So what!!!
BTW, the way that you "spread" and "structure" your responses makes me think that you are not a programmer! LOL
-wirelessguru1
