[RightWingNilla]

And as someone who has extensive project experience and understanding of project constraints on the final result, one would absolutely expect errors, DNA coden reuse for new functionality, defects (mutations) that provide advantages but with damaging limitations, and so on.

In most cases the errors found in the human genome are notlinked to nor are required in any way for the functionality of the "working" parts.

The major difference is that evolutionary theory says "well, given enough time and geographical isolation it just happens" and intelligent design says "except what just happens is guided."

This sounds more reasonable to me, and would be consistent with a common ancestor and shared errors observed. But it is no more falsifiable than the theory that angels guide the planets around the sun in addition to the natural gravitational forces.

[dark_lord]

In most cases the errors found in the human genome are notlinked to nor are required in any way for the functionality of the "working" parts.

And in most cases errors found in software are not required in any way for the functionality of the "working" parts. Usually they're just bugs.

This sounds more reasonable to me, and would be consistent with a common ancestor and shared errors observed. But it is no more falsifiable than the theory that angels guide the planets around the sun in addition to the natural gravitational forces.

Oh, absolutely. That's why I have said I'm not pushing a theory. The main difference between me and the pro evolution (non intelligent design) folks is that I recognize and assert that NEITHER is falsifiable, while they ignore that standard evolutionary theory is no stronger than intelligent design, but assert the one over the other as "proved".