"Only in the sense that its mistakes get weeded out, and thus its successes accumulate, providing a "step up" for the next cycle of trial and error." And what would that process look like for the formation of the very first functional DNA strand?
The nature of your question reveals your ignorance of this topic, which is odd in that you aren't at all shy about making lofty pronouncements and ironclad conclusions about it.
First, I was clearly talking about evolutionary processes (in response to a person who asked about evolution). These are different processes than those which formed the first replicator (evolution by definition is what happens *after* there is a replicator).
As for the first replicator, you're way behind on your homework if you think it was likely a "DNA strand".
For a quick overview on some likely pathways (and odds) of abiogensis, see: Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations . For extra credit, read the references. See especially:
RNA-catalysed nucleotide synthesis.
Selection of RNA amide synthases.
Emergence of symbiosis in peptide self-replication through a hypercyclic network.
Autocatalytic networks: the transition from molecular self-replication to molecular ecosystems.
Emergence of a Replicating Species from an in vitro RNA Evolution Reaction
The Hypercycle: A Principle of Natural Self Organization
Once you've caught up on this brief overview of the literature on this topic, do get back to us.
And what would that process look like for the formation of the very first functional DNA strand? - Southack
"First, I was clearly talking about evolutionary processes (in response to a person who asked about evolution). These are different processes than those which formed the first replicator (evolution by definition is what happens *after* there is a replicator)."
No, the difference isn't clear at all. Abiogenesis is merely the most clearcut and easiest to understand example, but ANY formation of DNA into a valid gene brings up the perfectly valid question of whether it was formed due to unaided natural (sometimes referred to as "random", but the use of that term is too easily obfuscated to be useful for a combative thread) processes or else formed from intelligent intervention.
The reply in question, however, was dealing with a claim that "feedback" could be used to explain the natural formation of useful data, with a specific, easy to understand example being brought out to bring that claim's validity into clear view (i.e. the aforementioned abiogenesis).