From the link you provided: "One way to distinguish between copying and independent creation is suggested by analogy to the following two cases from the legal literature. In 1941 the author of a chemistry textbook brought suit charging that portions of his textbook had been plagiarized by the author of a competing textbook... In 1946 the publisher of a trade directory for the construction industry made similar charges against a competing directory publisher ... In both cases, mere similarity between the contents of the alleged copies and the originals was not considered compelling evidence of copying. After all, both chemistry textbooks were describing the same body of chemical knowledge (the books were designed to 'function similarly') and both directories listed members of the same industry, so substantial resemblance would be expected even if no copying had occurred. However, in both cases errors present in the 'originals' appeared in the alleged copies. The courts judged that it was inconceivable that the same errors could have been made independently by each plaintiff and defendant, and ruled in both cases that copying had occurred. The principle that duplicated errors imply copying is now well established in copyright law. (In recognition of this fact, directory publishers routinely include false entries in their directories to trap potential plagiarizers.) Can 'errors' in modern species be used as evidence of 'copying' from ancient ancestors? In fact, the answer to this question appears to be 'yes,' since recent molecular genetics investigations have uncovered some examples of the same 'errors' present in the genetic material of humans and apes."
The analogy of plagiarism fails to illustrate what is intended. Rather, it provides an illustration of the opposite of what the author intended. Let's look at where the analogy fails. One, books are intelligently designed, even if plagiarism occurs. Two, books are not self-replicating, so plagiarism requires direct intervention by an intelligent designer. Three, plagiarism in the example cited was proved by duplicated errors of an EXISTING original, something evolution does not have. Four, duplicated errors exist even when plagiarism does not occur. That is, future editions continue to reproduce previous errors until they are corrected. Five, the article admits that some publishers intentionally insert "errors" in order to provide a layer of protection against plagiarism. And so the "errors" would not be errors, technically speaking. In this final case, the "errors" serve as a kind of hidden autograph that proves their ownership. (Surely you can see my point on this one. The copyright owner leaves a mark to prove ownership.)
On point number three, consider the same legal case where the original does not exist. If two publishers went to court where the claim of plagiarism was made, what would happen without the original? The claimant might assert that the errors in their book came from an earlier edition, and the defendant must have copied this earlier edition. Without the original the case would be thrown out.
Now, please revisit the BETTER analogy I used in my previous post. Computer programs are simpler but similar to living things. All computer programs exist as a direct or indirect result of "intelligent design" (of the programmer). Most programs by the same programmer use code libraries to make the process of design more efficient. This results in unnecessary, redundant and inefficient (technically) code in subsequent programs. This concept of programming design is called "re-usability". This analogy fits perfectly within the scientific findings of biology.
I can tell you firsthand that this is a fact. In many different types of computer software there are many lines of code which serve NO PRACTICAL purpose. They are there because the designer or design team was able to perform their task more effectively by reusing existing functions rather than creating them from scratch.
There are other reasons why apparent errors may exist in software. I do not think it is necessary to explore all of them just to make my point.
In a way, programs "evolve". In another sense, they are "intelligently designed". But, by way of this analogy to nature, errors do not automatically support the idea of universal common ancestry any more than they support a universal common Designer.
The analogy of plagiarism fails to illustrate what is intended. This gets a little stupid, doesn't it? Evolution predicts the indefinite continuation of neutral, irrlevant, vestigial features in the absence of pressures (such as exist in some bacteria) for efficiency and clean code. "Common design" has to shrug and say "You don't know the designer's ultimate purpose."
Rather, it provides an illustration of the opposite of what the author intended.
This is you distracting yourself, grasping at straws, simply refusing in your religious horror to go where the evidence points. Design is not a tight hypothesis and refuses to explain what we see. It merely reserves that a Designer could have left the mess we see for reasons of His own.
Let's look at where the analogy fails.
This is really time-wasting, irrelevant BS. If you don't want your nose rubbed in the inadequacies of design as supposed science, spare yourself.
One, books are intelligently designed, even if plagiarism occurs.
The analogy offered was not "Books just grow. Books have information. Therefore, since organisms have information, organisms must just grow." This is the strawman argument you are rebutting. This is cretin science.
Two, books are not self-replicating, so plagiarism requires direct intervention by an intelligent designer.
Same argument as their being "intelligently designed." You are missing a demonstration that the property of being self-replicating in itself implies design.
Three, plagiarism in the example cited was proved by duplicated errors of an EXISTING original, something evolution does not have.
Irrelevant except where wrong. We don't always have the original text of a literary work, either. We routinely make deductions and attempted reconstructions of originals by comparing later editions, rejecting outliers but making allowance when some are obvious copies directly from others, etc.
Four, duplicated errors exist even when plagiarism does not occur.
Common descent is not really plagiarism, but it duplicates "errors," inefficiencies, irrelevancies, vestigies, etc.
That is, future editions continue to reproduce previous errors until they are corrected.
You got it. Unless and until there are selection pressures for efficiency, the code can get junky.
Five, the article admits that some publishers intentionally insert "errors" in order to provide a layer of protection against plagiarism. And so the "errors" would not be errors, technically speaking.
Now there's a theory. Please explain who God was afraid of and how filling our genomes with viral DNA scars protects him.
In this final case, the "errors" serve as a kind of hidden autograph that proves their ownership. (Surely you can see my point on this one. The copyright owner leaves a mark to prove ownership.)
So God is a virus?
Sorry, I don't mean to play Twist and Shout. That's a very creationist style of argument. You didn't start out doing that, but you're in denial now, looking for ways not to face things, and the door marked "JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND" beckons, doesn't it?