As discussed for other questions, life’s programming must be processed to bear any fruit. The processing of programming is a whole new problem, as least as difficult to explain as the programming itself.
But, even beyond the nanocomputer processing of life’s many programs, the computation must be converted into energy-consuming physical structures and processes. Building blocks have to be manufactured, delivered to the job site, and used to build the cell’s architectural structure. Biochemical pathways and cycles have to be instituted. This requires engineering physical molecular shapes that can bind to one another in highly specific ways. Physical tools are required. Machines have to be designed and created. Energy has to be stored and converted into usable forms when needed. Each cell must have a skeleton of fibrils, spindles and membranes, both internal membranes and those surrounding the cell to contain it. The cell must have Golgi apparatuses, mitochondria, endoplasmic reticulum, chloroplasts, etc.
The processing of any program, therefore, is not just computational. The formal controls must be converted into physical reality. This requires very sophisticated machinery. The final physical products and total cellular architecture is mind-boggling. Proteins literally walk along fibrils on two legs carrying heavy payloads on their backs that weigh many times their own weight.
Machinery has never been designed and engineered by anything other than already existing life. Agents design and engineer equipment, not non-living (inanimate) nature. Chemical reactions don’t design and engineer anything. Neither do physical interactions ruled only by the laws of physics and the four forces of nature.
How did the first phenotypic cell get physically produced by a simple system of formal instructions? It’s not just a question of how the cells' programming got processed. It’s, how did non-living mass and energy manufacture and construct all of the component parts, machinery, girders, floors, rooms, and physical trim?
The genetic and epigenetic programming and processing must be completed before any phenotypic organism exists to differentially survive. For the organism to be “fittest,” it’s programming and processing must first be fittest. In addition, the construction company has to be the best.
The environment doesn’t “select” programming decisions at decision nodes. The only thing the environment can select is the best already-living, already-programmed, already processed, already constructed physical organisms.
Evolution theory tells us absolutely nothing about how programming and processing came into existence in the first place. In addition, it tells us nothing about where the construction company got its expertise from to convert symbol systems (even more abstract than two-dimensional blue prints) into physical sky-scrapers. Evolution deals only with differential survival of already fittest species. It merely presupposes the exquisite programming, processing and construction prowess that alone could produce the fittest physical organisms.1-6