[unlearner]

"The 16S ribosomal phylogenetic tree would make no sense. Why, if we are descended from two separately created organisms, do all our ribosomes fall on a single phylogenetic tree?"

Efficient coding by the Designer. Reusability. Wise planning which took into consideration interdependence within organisms and the ecosystem.

As someone who has (in a prior profession) developed several software programs which were integrated, I would expect code driven functionality to follow a similar paradigm. Some companies are all Microsoft, some are Linux, some use both for their respective benefits. Some use other systems altogether. None of them find it necessary to reinvent the wheel and design a new operating system for each proprietary application.

It might be possible to predict unknown code sequences of some software being reverse engineered. Doing so would not imply that all software having similar features was derived from some common ancestor of all computer programs. That will continue to be true even if programs become advanced enough to meet the definitions of intelligent or living. It will be true even if they acquire the ability to think, self repair, self improve, assimilate and replicate.

What would falsify UCD? Not just particular mechanisms, pathways, etc. which can be replaced ad hoc. Tell me what yet to be found data, if discovered, would cause you to completely abandon the notion in favor of a diverse and distinct ancestry.

[Right Wing Professor]

Efficient coding by the Designer. Reusability. Wise planning which took into consideration interdependence within organisms and the ecosystem.

Oh good. I'm glad we've dispensed with the scientific facade. Godidit.

What you don't know, however, is that the Designer (u.c.!) did it last Thursday, and simply designed you with memories to think that you existed earlier.