No, it's precisely gore3000's point. He thinks God is a machine language coder (not even assembler really - that'd be too inefficient!) who was not able to create cells with enough space for a big enough ROM to concentrate on implementing the functional specs; He had to do it while reusing vast amounts of code in very ugly ways - such as mutliple entry and exit points & combined backwards/forwards reading:
They found that one gene was making more than one protein through reuse of the DNA sequence by starting and ending the sequence at different points. A quite ingeneous system and certainly implying design, not evolution. In fact it implies design to such a great extenct that it is exactly the way in which old assembly language programs were constructed - subroutines would be written with different entry and exit points in order to reuse the code.
... indeed it is excellent design! It is just this kind of excellent design that allowed Visicalc, the first spreadsheet to work in just 64k of memory and which allowed Lotus to do just about everything a spreadsheet needs to do in a mere 256k. Reuse of code is an efficient and proper programming practice when resources are limited or one wants or needs concise code.
Why would God - who created the cells in the first place - have to limit Himself in such a way?
p.s. Remember: "God has His own reasons" destroys any hope of your belief being falsifiable.
Despite more evidence of your misunderstanding, this statement is not true. Beliefs are not falsifiable, they are held or not held. Theories are different.
Why did Ford have to limit themselves by painting all Model T's Black?
I did not call God a machine language coder, He is the Creator, I would never say such a thing.
Let's get on to the facts. You already admitted that intelligent beings (humans) did indeed write such complex code when computer resources were much smaller. Now, you may call such reuse of code 'ugly', but I call it gorgeous. I see no beauty in waiting for a 200 megabyte program loading when the same thing could have been done with a tenth or more likely a hundredth of the code. The reason why such garbage code has become an industry standard is itself interesting: programs have become too large for them to be created or maintained by a single individual. This was not the case in the old days so a programmer did not have to make the code 'easy to read' and 'easy to document' so that others would be able to add their contributions to it because he was the only one working on it. One would think that the Creator would be operating the same way - He did not have to document his code so He made it as compact and as efficient as possible.
As I said, replicating inefficient DNA is a big waste of resources - why replicate 10 times more DNA than you need? You need, food, time, etc. to accomplish it. It is a big burden on an organism to do that. One would think that a 'natural selection' process would work against such inefficiency would it not? Seems you are contradicting your own theory in bashing efficiency.
Which brings us to the big problem for evolutionists in all this. Such re-use creates problems in random mutations being workable, such re-use creates problems in even thinking how such re-use could have occurred through random means. Natural forces do not act in such a way. Only intelligent beings make choices, natural forces do not.