Wrong again. Gene frequencies for sickle cell anemia are maintained in equilibrium in a population as a function of the prevalence of malaria in that population's habitat. Increased infection with malaria leads to an increase in sickle cell trait because heterozygous carriers of the trait are resistant to malaria while homozygous normal folks are not. Being homozygous for sickle cell anemia is fatal. Populations with the trait in regions where malaria has been eliminated experience a decline in the frequency of the responsible gene. This is natural selection.
That's an utter non-sequitor. It has nothing to do with either our fossil evidence or with various models of cars buried in junkyards. Further, I'm not saying that natural selection is impossible. Your argument acts as if I did, though, and that's one of many reasons why it is a non-sequitor (i.e., has nothing to do with the debate at hand).
What I am saying is that natural selection can't produce out of chaos the level of order required for either useful DNA or useful computer programs. Once DNA and computer programs are here, natural selection can concievably reduce the number of computer programs or DNA life forms, but that serves no use toward creating distinct new, improved, more complex computer programs or DNA life forms (sans intelligent intervention, anyway), for that we've only seen evidence of designers giving us those new creations.