Dark_Lord asked what would refute common descent, and I replied with several examples - one of which was that the genetic code would differ between organisms. Agree?
but the archea have some codes which do not read the same as with the rest of living things.
THese guys are interesting, and there are others that use "weird" amino acids. But they still for the most part use the same code.
Not correct. While we do observe mutations, we do not observe mutations which are either favorable
I suggest you start with reading about how antibodies work.
For the most part does not quite cut it though. To read the genome incorrectly would mean death of the species. This is the problem for evolutionists - any change which would result in death has to occur instantanoeusly. That would be a miracle. Also it is against gradual evolution.
Not correct. While we do observe mutations, we do not observe mutations which are either favorable-me-
I suggest you start with reading about how antibodies work.
I am quite aware of how antibodies work. They were specifically designed to be different. The system is specifically different than other human systems. This is not mutation, but a specific system to achieve different antibodies to fight disease. The proof is that the successful one, is multiplied many times to fight the current disease and the 'model' for it remains in the system for future use. That is why vaccination works. There is nothing stochastic or random about it.
Let me give a counter example. Suppose that at some point, some big old alien space ark showed up and dumped a complete ecosystem into Earth's oceans. We have no evidence that such a thing has happened, of course, other than strangenesses like the sudden appearance of shelly invertebrates: trilobites, brachiopods, mollusks, and so on being rather bizarre. But the point is this -- the current evidence of genetic similarity just means that everthing alive today is related. It doesn't mean that it all derived from common ancestors. All life today could have derived from different ancestors that were also related.
To clarify, if you say that since there is a lack of unrelated genetic code, therefore common ancestry - seems a non sequiter to me. I don't think you can prove common ancestry by the absence of a negative.
If your point is merely that the presence of unrelated genetic codes would refute common descent I would agree. But the absence of unrelated genetic codes does nothing to prove common descent.