[William Tell]

Whatever happened to the notion that the same protein (or amino acid) can be coded in more than one way.? If there are multiple, equally equivalent ways to code an amino acid, then there should be some meaning ascribed to the fact that several presumably related species code the same way, when alternatives would generate the same result.

I'm unimpressed by the linked article because it seems to be saying that "it's just too complicated" to be explained by other than the work of a creator.

[GodGunsGuts]

Actually, I think you have it backwars. The same sequences can result in many different kinds of proteins. Not only that, we now know that genes are not the beads on a string sequences that the geneticists once supposed them to be. DNA is read forward and backward, on the sense and anti-sense strands, and even between multiple chormosomes and then spliced together. It is obvious that it is the cell controlling this process, and not the genes themselves. If you interested, I have some fascinating (creationist) links on the subject—GGG

[count-your-change]

Therein lies the fault in your argument, the presumption of relatedness. And yes, there should be meaning in the fact that some parts of codes of different animals are the same.

They face many of the same conditions in life.

[tpanther]

Unimpressive is the demand that everything is just because...

random...

unintelligent...

uncaused...

undesigned...

without guided purpose...

just because...

[ElectricStrawberry]

Whatever happened to the notion that the same protein (or amino acid) can be coded in more than one way.?

That notion is perfectly fine......they're looking at actual mutations....presumably heritable ones.....to draw a connection.