Hey Jydee,
I find your comparison of the evolutionary process to computer code unfortunate, for the following reasons:
1) Computers (i.e. operating systems & the vast majority of applications) do not operate on a 'natural selection' principle, but rather on a set of pre-defined design guidelines. Your average windows procedure is nothing but a huge 'switch' statement, designed to handle all possible events. Unlike the evolutionary process, the OS knows beforehand all possible events that may occur and is designed to act on each eventuality. The process is static, not dynamic like evolution.
2) Computers (bar certain exclusive applications, which themselves imitate biological evolution) do not operate on a 'random mutation' principle. There's always a purpose/goal that needs to be achieved before design begins. There aren't any (professional) programmers who say 'I'll start coding and see what comes out'.
3) The building blocks of programming code (bits) have no inherent properties that dictate their behaviour. The building blocks of life (carbon atoms, hydrogen atoms, et al) do have inherent properties that dictate how they react, group together, etc.
For these reasons alone your 'evolution is like computer coding' premise is a false analogy.
Also:
Jydee writes:
A last remark. Both codes create unstable ever changing images.
what? any examples of computer code that intentionally does that please ?
Jydee writes:
A living cell is a constantly changing image that differs from millisecond to millisecond . The same with the computer generated image you are looking at. . It is just an illusion that there is a constant non changing image on the screen.
what illusion? how? the code behind this page (html / cgi script) is as unchanging as they come.
"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."
™ Version 4.2