I think my 'model' is exactly RM + NS, but with inclusion of the understanding of genetics, genomics etc which has come since Darwin. This includes things like endosymbiosis as the origin of eukaryotic cells, large numbers of neutral mutations, some horizontal gene transfer, imprinting, etc.
If some additional effects are discovered I am confident that they can also be fitted into this framework.
I think it is wrong to see each complication revealed by genetics as a refutation of RM + NS, instead they are refinements. If anything, these refinements increase the power of mutation to explain our evolutionary history.
I also do not believe there is any need for any other 'force' to explain evolution. This includes theistic involvement in any way.
I realize abiogenesis is an unexplained area, but think we will find that too does not require any magic.
As to my alternative to the computer analogy, think of a teletype terminal or computer printer. That takes any 'message' in ascii code and prints it out. Any message, mutated or not, is printed. There is no need for error-correction because errors will not jam the printer etc.
Think of the 'messages' which are printed out as individual organisms. Natural selection can then screen messages and make additional copies of those which are particularly effective (but not necessarily understandable as English).
I am totally sure I understand your view of evolution, but I am getting closer. TY for the effort you put into explaining it.
I will attempt to summarize your view in my own words. I know I will get some of it wrong but I am trying to understand.
1. RM + NS are still in play but we have learned evolution uses more than single point mutations to create diversity. For example, horizontal gene transfer, epigenetics and other mechanisms all play significant roles.
2. That there are many mutations of genes, proteins, DNA fragments ... which enters into some kind of queue or holding bin (like Junk DNA) as copies of the original. Now random selection mechanisms work on the queue of available options and selects the best one. There is no real need for error correction in this model because the less fit options are selected out as part of the process.
Keith, I am not trying to create a straw man. I really am just trying to understand, so feel free to correct me. TIA