Replies

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.

The history of artifacts and systems of human designs often show "inherited" features that are "archaic", non-functional or even anti-functioning. For example, the outer breast pocket of sport jackets was originally designed to hold shotgun shells for upland game hunting. Today one finds jackets on the rack where those pockets are sewn shut, or even just decorative fakes with no pocket inside.

What is the most appropriate model for observing, for classifying observations? When one encounters systems that seem designed, a model for observation and classifications is suggested by that design.

In observations what one observes is always colored and filtered by the model one has of what is observable, what one wants to observe on the basis of that model, and what becomes interesting.

What was the model set in Darwin's mind at the time he landed on Galapagos? What about it was interesting to him and why? For that preset mind has colored and filtered so much of science and social forces since. What that model was was obviously resonant. If not had by Darwin, then by someone else in nearly the same years, and just as resonant.

The reverse-engineering of design, btw, does not eliminate any pathways for observations and analysis, nor short-cut them.