But your point is well taken. There is a legitimate way to conceptually view even DNA instruction sets as being Base 2 at the lowest level.So far I can only think of two examples to draw upon - living things and man-made computers. The evidence already points to natural processes creating RNA & DNA. And as we've seen, on the level of coding systems there is ample evidence of fitness gradients that the different codes can climb to reach the current optimum ones.So with that admitted, what does the preponderance of current scientific evidence point to for the creation of Base 2 programs, intelligent intervention -or- unaided, natural processes creating our software?
The evidence-by-analogy from computers does point to imperfect designers, since that is what happened with manmade computers. But evolution, being a natural design process, is less-than-omniscient, just like the early programmers were. So IMO the computer analogy doesn't help us much in deciding between intelligent designers & natural evolutionary processes. Sorry!
I don't see how you can say that with a straight face.
What evidence? Natural processes programming Base 4 (or even Base 2, if you are of a mind to look at the sequences of nucleotides that way) DNA?! Oh please!
Now, we do have evidence of Base 2 systems being programmed, but by Man's intelligent intervention, not by natural processes, but somehow I doubt that's the sort of thing that you want to hear!