This I have to strongly disagree with. Natural law - according to forces of natural world. Mutations have been observed to be caused by phenomena of the natural world - UV, cosmic rays, chemicals etc.
The "spaghetti code" (like that phrase) as you say, appears to be the result of well understood natural phenomena.
Examples: in the case of the defunct Vitamin C gene, there is a one base pair deletion found in primates. Deletions such as this have been shown to be caused by certain mutagens in the lab. Gene duplication is caused by unequal crossing over events during cell division - and it looks like this happened a whole bunch of times in human ancestors.
Why bring extraneous stuff like "elves" or "sub-sub contractors" into the mix?
But in fact we suffer little damage from this in "the natural world". Very few cosmic ray strikes hit germ plasm subject to being inherited, and almost all mutations are damaging. UV? May cause the occasional skin cancer but I don't think anyone has pointed out how UV is going to cause inherited changes. Chemicals? Other than naturally occuring plant generated chemicals which appear to be designed to inhibit insect predation, animals suffer very little chemically induced mutation in the wild.
Examples: in the case of the defunct Vitamin C gene, there is a one base pair deletion found in primates. Deletions such as this have been shown to be caused by certain mutagens in the lab.
Yep. But just because we can cause mutations with mutagens in the lab, does not imply the concept that "some mutations provide survival advantage" as in enabling an animal to have more offspring or enabling its offspring to survive better. Again, this is an identification of a possible cause, however this has not been observed to spontaneously happen in the wild, it is merely inferred.
Regarding mutation as a cause of evolutionary chain, I quote Ernest Chain, one of the team that discovered penicillin: "To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutation seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest."
Why bring extraneous stuff like "elves" or "sub-sub contractors" into the mix?
Why are they "extraneous"? I assert that it is no more unlikely that extra-dimensional agents are applying genetic manipulation deliberately than that it occurs purely by happenstance (given enough time, etc.) After all, there is no more or less observed evidence for one as for the other. And both are theoretically possible. Once one realizes the number of physics papers arguing for extra dimensions for the totality of reality (see string theory, M and P brane theory), there is no longer a reason to reject such concepts as supernatural. So -- if one is to reject hypotheses on "nature spirits" for example, one must apply precisely the same criteria to the concept of "natural law". And since all one can use for evidence is effects....I assert that TOE is equally weak.