Then under how you are defining evolution what you are saying is fine remember GR only approximates to newtons law of gravity it goes well beyond it.
You seem to want me to mesh QM so that it becomes exactly classical evolution and that is never going to be possible.
My problem with your post above as a definition is take a super computer and you can crunch every possible outcome right now .. do you see why because you are excluding the possibility of the code expanding.
Humans and any organism is forever stuck with the number of genes it had .... you basically agree with creationsists at that point because we can't evolve from a much simpler organism.
No doubt you are then going to expand it say now all the treadwater recombination counts and they can also add in new codes and thats fine for you in a classic world but QM doesn't work like that.
To QM the recombinationals don't matter QM already "percieves" the answer simultaneously and all paths to possible outcomes exist simultaneously and all at once because the qm waves travel all paths simultaneously it already knows the most thermodynamically favoured and now all it needs to do is test it against the enviroment which involves stuff outside QM's knowledge or reach.
This is the hard bit for people using classic physics to get head's around and it goes against the grain because we are taught and interact with the world differently.
Go back to the basics and read it again Sascha's article does a reasonable job at ithttp://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/are_you_real_quantum_mechanics-90221
Let’s introduce the profound controversial issue:
In the mathematical description of quantum mechanics, everything not forbidden is mandatory. A particle moving from A to B takes every possible path from A to B simultaneously. This includes paths that involve highly improbable events like a photon dividing into an electron-positron pair that then annihilates to result again in a photon. A quantum electrodynamics (QED) prediction of the interaction between an electron and a magnetic field correctly describes the interaction to 14 decimal places. For more accuracy, interactions that do not strictly belong to QED may have to be taken into account (QCD or suchlike are similar animals though), and anyway, today’s measurement accuracy is not sufficient to show whether QED predicts still more precisely. However, with those caveats in mind, as far as we know, QED as such is correct to 15, 16, 17 … hell - it is simply correct, period. In order to predict this well with the QED theory, you must take paths into account, paths and interactions that the involved particles could have taken in as far as one can tell from the outcome, paths that seem ridiculously complicated.
So from a QM perspective it already knows all the answers about all combinations of a fixed genetic length the moment they appear because of the energetics involved and it doesn't care how ridiculously complicated the path is it knows the answer.
The problem here is you are defining evolution to a human time based procession and as with most things in the quantum domain it won't move like that and you will simply be an observer to a sequence playing out, trying to work out why you can't fully understand it with your trusty classic physics.
You probably now start to really see why people are desperate trying to build a quantum computer.
There is no way to resolve our views I can't make the quantum world behave like classic physics and get QM to play out in classic physics time and give you absolute text book evolution.
I would however point out that I am not alone in thinking along these lines there is a really good article to actually have a good think about probably to end all this on as I doubt we are going to convince each otherhttp://phys.org/news/2012-12-dawn-life.html
I am pretty sure I can guess what they are proposing because the same sorts of things struck me when ImagingGeek pricked my interest with this thread.
I still see Craig Venter thinks he is going to be able to ignite life old school biological way so it will be interesting to see who wins out and we shouldn't have long to wait.http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23266-craig-venter-close-to-creating-synthetic-life.html