Wrong again. You've put the cart before the horse. I dismiss only your false contention that software design has any relevance to the study of biological systems. Think for a moment. Which came first? Did man invent the computer and begin to program it before or after he learned about evolution? Did it ever occur to you that cultural evolution is largely a mimetic process? Much of what you think of as intelligent design is just plain old mimicry followed by a lot of trial and error.
"We don't "know" how the first DNA sprang to life, and we have never witnessed abiogenesis in the lab..." -- Southack
Technically DNA didn't "spring to life." It is a polymer of nucleotide bases. These are molecules not living things. They exist naturally and can be synthesized easily with abiotic processes. RNA also occurs naturally and self replicates. It has catalytic properties. Proteins likewise occur abiotically and have enzymatic properties. These things oxidize easily and would be degraded quickly in an oxygen rich environment. Fortunately, oxygen was in short supply prior to the advent of photosynthetic pigments. That life got a foothold on this planet about 3.5 billion years ago is a certainty. That it began as something simpler than a prokaryote is a certainty. That species diversity greatly increased at the Cambrian Explosion is a certainty. That it occurred through entirely natural processes is a certainty. That we are the descendants of ancestors that once lived in the primordial sea is a certainty. That all of this occurred without any help from an Intelligent Designer is a certainty.
"...but we have seen computer programs execute in controlled environments. So while you've dismissed such knowledge, you've essentially thrown away all that we know about the only thing that resembles DNA on this planet." -- Southack
It doesn't matter that it resembles DNA in some trivial fashion. That Chimpanzees resemble humans has meaning. That Llamas resemble Camels has meaning. That DNA and computer codes are both sequences of stored information is irrelevant. The computer can be used to model DNA but is not itself a model of DNA. Until you get this straight your understanding will not improve.
Meanwhile, you have yet to realize that you can study the DNA directly. The software you tout so highly is just a clever toy. It will only mislead you because you have not yet been able to distinguish what is essential from what is merely a trivial resemblance.
"Wrong again. You've put the cart before the horse. I dismiss only your false contention that software design has any relevance to the study of biological systems. Think for a moment. Which came first? Did man invent the computer and begin to program it before or after he learned about evolution? Did it ever occur to you that cultural evolution is largely a mimetic process? Much of what you think of as intelligent design is just plain old mimicry followed by a lot of trial and error."
Nonsense. First of all, you are wrong to claim that Intelligent Control is not responsible for the creation of computer programming. Second, you are going off on an unrelated digression when you claim to know that computer programming came about only due to mimicry (and wrong even on that unrelated "point").
What you leave unaddressed above is important, however. DNA, which you or someone like you called "nothing special" earlier in this thread, is the only thing other than computer programming which is capable of storing data, processing data, and replicating.
You were actually doing fine until that last comment. It does not follow from the other comments that speciation is due to entirely natural, unaided, unintelligent processes any more than it follows that different models of cars designed and built themselves through entirely natural, unaided, unintelligent processes.
"It doesn't matter that it resembles DNA in some trivial fashion. ... That DNA and computer codes are both sequences of stored information is irrelevant. ... Meanwhile, you have yet to realize that you can study the DNA directly."
No, it is obvious that I realize that we can study DNA directly, but what apparently I alone on this thread realize is that direct study of DNA doesn't (and can't) tell us if DNA was formed by a natural, unaided, unintelligent process or was instead formed by an intelligent, aided process.
On the other hand, DNA is the only item in our entire known universe other than computer programming to be able to store data, process data, and replicate; so perhaps it makes some sense to study computer programming and how it originated, since direct study of computer programming can tell us if it was formed via unintelligent, unaided, natural processes or formed via intelligent, aided, un-natural processes...