And that can't be explained by degradation from the design because..................?
And that can't be explained by degradation from the design because..................?
...because no one who has actually looked at the genome could make such an elementary mistake.
Start with the premise of degradation from design and you'll get one set of tests that you can make to see if the premise is true. For example you wouldn't expect there to be any pattern in the degradation that followed similar "kinds" of species about. It would be curious indeed to see similar "kinds" experiencing identical degradation.
Start with the premise of evolution from a common ancestor and you get a different set of tests that you can make to see if the premise is true. For example you'd expect flaws in the genomes to follow the hierarchy of common descent. Very closely related species, that have a recent common ancestor, would share all the genomic flaws of that common ancestor. More distantly related species, where the common ancestor is in the distant past, would share fewer genomic flaws. It isn't just the flaws that are relevant of course. We'd expect function to follow the pattern of common descent too, both at the genotype and morphological level.
The Designer could have done anything, even designed things to mirror the appearance of common descent for inscrutable reasons. What those who reject common descent need to ponder is why all the tests that would falsify common ancestry that we can devise end up failing to falsify it. Instead the predictions of genome and morphology that we make using the assumption of common descent are confirmed, again and again and again. If there was a Designer (and that hypothesis can never be disproved, a Designer can do anything and therefore satisfies all tests) then that Designer either used evolution, or mimicked the results of evolution.