What's smarter, the brain or the cell that made it?

Natural selection would be "the best fitted for the current environment, generic mutation, survives and passes on its genes"
Evolution would be the progress from one state to another.
I haven't looked at the wiki, but am I close?

In the ballpark, anyway. Natural selection is the mechanism/process through which evolution occurs. Evolution is the term for the process of gradual change within a species over time. Natural selection emphasizes reproductive advantages (or negatively, disadvantages) of this or that trait in large populations over very long periods of time (for larger species). The number of individuals with the traits that provide the most reproductive advantage gradually increases.

So, it's not accurate to say that an individual organism may or may not evolve in response to exposure to a virus. Adaptation is yet another aspect of evolution, but not identical with it.

This might be easier to digest:

DNA contains the information to make everything that is alive. This however is not possible, since life can not be created without DNA, and since DNA is the code that guides the formation of life, an impossibility of existence emerges. That can only be solved, if DNA code, is a software program, on a helixical hard drive matrix, that was inserted into hardware (cell) to create the cells animation. Simplified, you are a machine, that was created.

Science has long rejected this idea, but with every new scientific development, science is coming closer to being able to do, just this.

Ooh yes. I am speaking of branches of living creatures from the RNA creature. Individually I am looking for the trigger mechanisms that are changing the RNA structure from one generation to the next.
I read somewhere over a decade ago that changes in the coding happened by themselves.
I am not sure if they changed that and now explain the process that triggered mutations naturally.
Does that make sense?

Indeed all DNA code changes by itself, as such the so called random mutations are since they ultimately produce a better suited to the environment organism, actually preprogramed, as random mistakes will not ultimately prove successful. The reality of DNA, is that we just do not understand, how it takes Earth atoms, and animates them into life.

Yeah that's what I mean "random mutation" .
Instead of "random", I am looking for what triggered "random" to occur.
Does that make sense?

Yes it makes sense, as what has been attributed to being random mutations, are more likely preprogrammed yet random changes, that have the ability, to be eliminated by the program later, or have a select few continued on in the program, if they are passed on to the next incarnation of the program, by means of what we currently know as evolution.

Yes. The word "random".
That leaves a blank spot.
So I am trying to replace that word with an actual process.

Since DNA at a code level, can not actually be aware of the environment, in which it exist, it can only produce variations as part of an organized process, that are random, only because we can not prove they are part of the codes work. When DNA code is understood, then random may be eliminated, but even random codes can be part of an organized process, this is done now in many applications. You can not replace the word random, without first decoding DNA, and this has nothing to do with understanding genes, it has to do with understanding the code at an atomic level.

So Pete, again, if you believe that you are going to solve DNA, this is also not going to happen, as you have stated that you are uneducated, and highly educated persons working together are making just tiny steps at a time in this field. You can only ponder.

Both are kind of correct. DNA and RNA are very similar molecules and information contained in one can easily be transcribed on the other, both ways.

His question is which came first, and to that there are lots of answers, but the only one that makes scientific sense, is that they were created at the same time, to enable what we call life.

Well an educated person as yourself is explaining what you learned.
While explaining you say "and this randomly occurs".
I stopped and asked ok well the final product differs, so how are the instructions in the manual being charged?

What manual?

The current leading hypothesis is the RNA came fist. DNA would be a later improvement.

What ever you want to call it rna, dna, both. Where the information that gives the diversity of life is stored.

DNA, is both the code, and the storage mechanism for the code.

As for what is smarter the brain, or what made the brain? is just not the question, the question is what made the cell, that made the brain. This is the evolutionary quandary, that necessitates a creator.

Yes! That's it!
Based on the knowledge you accumulated, can you explain the process of how the different information is written on it?
How does it change it's program of duplication?

The code of DNA, is not written, it is self replicating. It may have been created, though not necessarily written as we know, however since it controls the growth of life, it can not have self formed as some believe. If I could explain DNA. I seriously doubt, that I would be here now. DNA changes, by simply changing a variable in it's code, if the change benefits the organism, then the change, gets passed down to the next generation.

Well yes we may not yet have interpreted the full language.
But it's written material on a structure.
So the question would be "how is new material being written? "