The nestability of non-coding DNA has other implications.
The whole premise of intelligent design and common design rests on the analogy with human designers. After all, humans are the only designers we can actually observe.
But we have many examples of genomes designed or modified by humans — plant crops, insulin producing bacteria and so forth — and all of them have an instantly identifiable characteristic: they don’t nest. They can’t be the product of common descent.
So if we are using the designer analogy, we can sort living things into two categories: those things that fit the nested hierarchy required by the common descent hypothesis, and those things that don’t. The things that don’t fit are known to have been designed by humans.
[[But we have many examples of genomes designed or modified by humans — plant crops, insulin producing bacteria and so forth — and all of them have an instantly identifiable characteristic: they don’t nest. They can’t be the product of common descent.]]
You’ve brought this up several times i nthe past and I’ve asked you to clarify why you do and what you are tryign to infer- you haven’t done so, but continue to bring it up. inteligently manipulating genetic info has got nothign to do with common design. You say geneticly altered plants are identifiable inthat htey don’t ‘nest’- Yeah? so what? Common design is also instantly identifiable. Not sure what your point is here even after askign several times for more clarification as to hte point your are tryign to make- How would intelligently alterec genetic material counterargue agaisnt common design?