> evolution cares not at all for separation of concerns That is not really quite true. Look at human anatomy: it is structured into various discrete organs. Th

> evolution cares not at all for separation of concerns That is not really quite true. Look at human anatomy: it is structured into various discrete organs. That is separation of concerns. Evolution indeed appears to create, adjust, and maintain systems of abstraction, somehow . . . and when you think about it, it seems central to what evolution is doing. You can start with the thought that there must be some coherent, discrete, mapping from genome to body -- otherwise evolution, by selection, could not work. It is not simple or clear, but there must be significant logical structure. Chaitin postulates hierarchy as a basic form (http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~chaitin/jack.html http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~chaitin/jack.html): it is a way to restrict the effects of mutation, and is indeed evident in the body. Chaitin also explains the genome/body separation (http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~chaitin/ev.html http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~chaitin/ev.html): it is a way of amplifying mutation -- small changes in the genome make large effects in the body (otherwise, large changes in the body would require comensurately large mutation) -- thereby making evolution more powerful. It seems there must be some significant relationship to software yet to be unravelled. http://www.hxa.name/notes/note-hxa7241-20090831T2006.html http://www.hxa.name/notes/note-hxa7241-20090831T2006.html