No, to me it has always smelled like a purely unintelligent hodgepodge - a classic kludge job. Funny how you think the same thing is an example of godlike elegance! But you're ignoring those introns & those psuedogenes, etc. On the one hand you think that hyper-reuse of some parts of some genes (much less than 3% of the total space) shows a great desire on the designer's part to save codons, but at the same time you have the other 97+% of the ROM devoted to regulating those genes. And your argument depends on all 97% of codon space being used for regulation! Your argument would be stronger if you thought that only the introns were put there by the designer. Then you could say that the other 77% really is junk and was the result of The Fall or something.
How much nonsense can you put in one post? Nothing depends on knowing the mind of the designer, nothing at all. We have a model in the DNA code which almost exactly replicates the way computer code has been written (only that the way the DNA code was done much better). It is also not an intuition, we have gone over this a long time and you have already agreed that this is indeed the way programming has been done, so cut the nonsense on that. And RWNilla has not given a single piece of evidence for his statements least of all the one you mention. In fact he said no such thing to me. Lastly, it does not matter what has been found up to now. Fact is that we keep finding new things going on in the non-coding DNA on a daily basis. Your statement that this much or that much is garbage is total nonsense. You are arguing from scientific ignorance and everyday that scientific ignorance is being pushed away. In addition to which it really does not matter for my argument if the code is in 1% or 150% of the DNA. What matters is that such a program is certainly in effect, that such actions have been shown by scientists to be going on in the genome, and that such actions explain quite well how things which we know do happen - such as how a cell comes to be such and such a kind of cell, how the body changes from conception to death, how the body reacts to the environment and internal conditions take place occurs. So no, you are just blowing smoke and you cannot refute a single statement I have made with any scientific evidence.
"anarchist evolutionary capitalism"...'science' too---a 'little' oxymoronishtic---don't you think!