Origyptian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> If it was random, then it should be at least
> as likely that they would summarily decompose, and
> yet they persist...and adapt. The question
> is, if it's all random, then how can those
> subroutines maintain, and in many cases make even
> more efficient, their use of energy to
> create such order without decomposing just as
> quiickly as they succumb to the same randomness
> that created them in the first place?

You are assuming that there have not been sufficient time and opportunity for one of these subroutines to cross the barrier between "life" and "not life" by any definition. I believe that life is not really more complex than nature itself but far less complex, thousands of orders of magnitude less complex. It is also a subset of the complexity of reality and acts the exact same way. The fact that the genome appears far more complex than necessary to create the individual and that individuals of "every" species are closely related, seems to suggest the universe is far larger and far older than we have previously imagined.

Shit happens. Chaos exists. Given sufficient time and opportunity virtually anything might have happened. Since life is so much less complex than reality then why not mere coincidence being at its root? It's kindda the opposite of string theory or most well known cosmological theories.