Replies

Yes, and every last piece of that evidence points to code re-use, not random, unaided "natural" formation of mathematical Base 2 / Base 4 instruction sets. Human programmers re-use Base 2 software code every day. One would expect to see similar genetic code re-use among a broad spread of organisms if indeed DNA had been constructed via some form of consistent Intelligent Intervention. On the other hand, IF genetic code was being formed by random, natural, unaided processes, then one would expect to see entirely unique instruction sets and absolutely no code re-use.

Not if everything evolved from a common ancestor. Nowhere does evolution suggest that life arose independently. Perhaps you didn't understand what gene duplication is; your genome accientally gets a new copy of a gene inserted. Now, with two copies, one can evolve to do one thing, and one to do another, without having changes in the second messing up the functioning of the first.

As for the reuse of code argument, much of the 'code reuse' makes no programming sense. For example, why should almost all higher animals use the same chromophore in all their visual pigments, to span the visual spectrum from the ultraviolet to the far red? It puts enormous constraints on the design of the rest of the protein. Organic chemists can do far better by just changing a few atoms in the chromophore, without messing with the whole protein sequence. Koji Nakanishi can make the same butterfly fly to any color of flower he desires, by a few minor chemical changes in their visual pigment. Yet 'life' took a far more circuitous route.

If life were designed, 'idiotic design' would be a more descriptive term than intelligent design. If a human genome were a program you'd written, you'd be fired.

"As for the reuse of code argument, much of the 'code reuse' makes no programming sense. For example, why should almost all higher animals use the same chromophore in all their visual pigments, to span the visual spectrum from the ultraviolet to the far red? It puts enormous constraints on the design of the rest of the protein."

Oh please. Even the latest releases of operating systems (e.g. MS Windows) have code re-used (and some code that is still there but not even in use) from generations ago (e.g. MS DOS).

Lazy programming and lazy code re-use is to be expected.

In a similar manner, entire cities could be designed "better" today than how they "evolved" over time, yet even so, the cities were built, re-used earlier work/code, and were literally micro-designed, rather than truly self-evolved per se.

So even though generations of cars buried in auto junkyards and cities that live even today all appear at first glance to have self - "evolved", a more scientific perusal of the evidence will show that they were all designed, albeit sometimes with rapid advances and at other times with very few design changes over time (Nor will every change have made sense or been the smartest possible thing to do).

And the same thing applies, especially so, for code and code re-use.

Sure, it might appear as though a program has "evolved" over time, but in reality, in every single known example what we see is that intelligent intervention guided each change (even if your stock portfolio of MicroSoft shares has plunged in value).

"Not if everything evolved from a common ancestor. Nowhere does evolution suggest that life arose independently."

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't we already identified at least FIVE unique "original" life forms/species that share no common genetic characteristics other than using the same DNA instruction processing system?

No matter, the burden of proof for a truly common ancestor is on Darwinists, and even if such an ancestor can be conclusively shown, it will only make Evolutionary Theory "remotely feasible", not even a shoe-in, in fact, not even the odds-on favorite (as the previously mentioned hurdles, math, etc. will still exist for it).

"If a human genome were a program you'd written, you'd be fired."

The human genome IS a program that we are now writing (OK, re-writing). Fascinating! Man is now able to begin contemplate genetic modifications to himself.

Frankly, I find that our current abilities are not worthy of firing anyone over, and in the future, we will have only ourselves to blame (one presumes) for how we turn out.

As for the reuse of code argument, much of the 'code reuse' makes no programming sense. For example, why should almost all higher animals use the same chromophore in all their visual pigments, to span the visual spectrum from the ultraviolet to the far red? It puts enormous constraints on the design of the rest of the protein. Organic chemists can do far better by just changing a few atoms in the chromophore, without messing with the whole protein sequence. Koji Nakanishi can make the same butterfly fly to any color of flower he desires, by a few minor chemical changes in their visual pigment. Yet 'life' took a far more circuitous route.

If life were designed, 'idiotic design' would be a more descriptive term than intelligent design. If a human genome were a program you'd written, you'd be fired.

A metaphysical, (non scientific) argument against creation such as this based upon your own expectations of what a designer would or would not do, or should or should not do, or is capable or incapable of doing does not constitute a proof of evolution or even evidence of evolution.

Cordially,