Exactly what I mean, an electronic model does not have such a fitness cost. However, in real life there is a fitness cost of non-useful organs, DNA, etc. It takes energy, food, etc. to keep such useless things alive so there is definitely a fitness cost. This is just one of the examples why this model is false. In fact, you are agreein with me:
when two nearly identical species occupy nearly the same contained biological nitche, one or the other will eventually prevail entirely, no matter how tiny its differential advantage.
Further, as I mentioned, the problem for evolution is to slowly, gradually, in small steps create a totally new organ, function, etc. with each single step making the organism more fit. This is the part of my argument you do not wish to discuss.
...and where is your proof that the beginnings of life had a fitness cost profile much different from the current electronic models?
No it doesn't. It takes a tiny fraction of a penny's worth of electricity, just as I just now said. The DNA->RNA->meat-machine cycle, with it's ultra-expensive need to keep renewing the meat-machine by eating other meat machines might be a recent innovation, with no real relevance to the early beginnings of life.
Right. I do not wish to discuss it, because it is only relevant to meat machines that have organs and functions to evolve, and a fixed DNA matrix in which to take these single steps to which you refer. If the thesis is that the process of evolution preceeded DNA and meat machines, than arguments apropos to the requirements and behaviors of DNA and meat machines, are--try to follow me now--utterly irrelevant.