Not really. It's more like a compiler, an optimizer/simulator, and compiler-compiler all pipelined in a circle. Seemingly random changes get incorporated into a starting binary that are selectively pruned/modified during the simulation/optimization phase, which generates a new compiler-compiler, which constructs a new compiler, which generates a new binary to run through the optimzer again.

It's more in-depth, because I'm abstracting away the elegance of protein/enzyme selection and translation through biochemical/mechanical fitness... But it's all there.

I'm just afraid of the predilection humanity as a collective has for not taking into account/being able to reason through higher order network effects.

Our economic/environmental woes prove that anything approaching the periodicity of a human lifespan becomes extremely hard to analyze/predict in any meaningful way. It seems to work though... So some days I feel like I can't really frame an argument against it.

It's kind of hard to argue that it isn't working when you have air conditioning.

There's a small part of me that wants this to exist. That sounds both horrifying and pretty hilarious at the same time.

We were told the evolution do the thing this way exactly, but one error at a time.

Exactly.

And that's why the OP is a bit horrifying.

DNA's compiler seems to love undefined behaviour ~ probably because the DNA writers knew precisely what to do, without errors.

Undefined behaviour? Whatever ~ creativity ftw!

So, life is greatest and laziest hacker, confirmed, lol?