Please explain your non-sequitur.
your proposal was analogous to the following statement:
Because two plus two equals seven is a constant, it is clear that spontaneous generation is indeed the way of the universe.
My rebuttal was analogous to the following:
Well, actually, it is a known, observable, readily demonstrable fact that two like units plus two like units never amount to more or less than four like units. Because the arithmetic of your principal statement is false, the derivative statement -reliant upon that false math- regarding spontaneous generation is automatically made specious.
That is what some people call "critical analysis" or "logic".
so, again, please explain how you managed the leap from "as this tenet of a constant, unchanging, pre-scripted code is the central leg of your proposal, your proposal fails the test of empirically observable fact." to "By your logic I can kick my computer and lessen instances of the "Blue Screen of Death". Then I could load my "new more complex code" onto your hard drive to spread the wealth."
Therefore we can reason that these overwhelmingly significant gaps between kinds of creature systems -- as a book with the same number of letters, using the same alphabet, using the same rules of language -- create %100 percent different systems/ stories.
Random editing of the text causes changes to appear, however those changes rarely produce cogent results. On the infinitesimal chance that a meaningful change occurs, the sentence is only slightly changed, but mathematically speaking the accuracy of the changes never produces a new story/ system. Given time -- absent any intelligent action -- random edits will geometrically always become gibberish.
Living organisms, with their incredibly complex interrelated systems, are even more mathematically impossible to improve upon. Absent intelligence things go from bad to worse, not good to better like you posit.