[bvw]

Your no-designer myopia blinders you. They are all analogies of how designs are replicate, how designs change from version to version. And such is exactly what the obseved variety of species can be -- that all species present on Earth today arose from one protogenitor cell is most improbable in comparison. Everything seen in cells and DNA can equally be explained by intentional design.

And just as running program code never sees nor senses the programmers and sysops, so we biologicals never see our designer -- yet we can infer design and designer.

[Dimensio]

They are all analogies of how designs are replicate, how designs change from version to version.

And it's still a completely invalid analogy because your "examples" do not typically self-replicate to produce imperfect copies of themselves with random variation within the copying. As such, your "examples" only show that you've not studied biology and you're desperately reaching for examples that make no valid point. If your examples aren't analagous to biological life forms, then you can't claim that your analogy has any meaning.

[Ichneumon]

Your no-designer myopia blinders you. They are all analogies of how designs are replicate, how designs change from version to version. And such is exactly what the obseved variety of species can be -- that all species present on Earth today arose from one protogenitor cell is most improbable in comparison. Everything seen in cells and DNA can equally be explained by intentional design.

This is completely false. If you knew anything about the features found in DNA, you'd know better than to say something this naively incorrect.

The characteristic similarities *and* differences in DNA are entirely unlike the kinds of similarities and differences seen between "versions" of design things. They are instead exactly like the kinds of similarities and differences which evolutionary descent from a common ancestor would produce. There are a great many features in DNA which, contrary to your claim that "can equally be explained by intentional design", actually make no sense whatsoever from a design standpoint, but make perfect sense from an evolutionary origin. Conversely, there are no DNA features which have been found that don't match the expectations of evolutionary origins, but which make sense from a solely design standpoint.

Furthermore, no one with any familiarity with computer programming and genetic algorithms would have any trouble distinguishing an evolved program from a written ("designed") one. The same is true of DNA -- it has all the hallmarks of an evolved "program", and not the hallmarks of a "designed" one.

Try to learn more about DNA analysis before you attempt to (incorrectly) critique it again.

And just as running program code never sees nor senses the programmers and sysops, so we biologicals never see our designer -- yet we can infer design and designer.

Nonsense: The advantages of theft over toil: the design inference and arguing from ignorance.