Not as an organism, but its genome certainly seems to be more complex.
If your 670 billion is correct then that sure implies that a lot is not used in the amoeba.
I would think so, but then it also seems that most of the human genome is similarly "unused" (although in each case it may play a structural role).
In either I would hope that we agree that the order of complexity is amoeba, mouse, man though some of the processes are probably pretty similar within the mouse and the man.
We undoubtedly would, but let's get back to the point I was addressing. CWRWinger was making the assertion that the amoeba's genome couldn't be modified to get anything like a horse or a human, because there wasn't enough code and no code could be added. As it turns out, there are several mechanisms by which code can be added, and there is no correlation between the complexity of organisms and the complexity of their genomes.
And there is no correlation (at least not a linear one--we just don't know yet) between number of genes and organismal complexity.
There certainly seems to be enough space to fit 3 billion bits on a 670 billion bit hard drive. His issue is probably the mechanism for changing the bits. My issue is the convent of the data. A polypeptide is a double bit word so 3 billion polypeptides = 6 billion bits of data or 750 Megabytes. Would you agree?
Absolutely false. The evolutionists have been saying that the large amount of non-coding DNA is 'junk'. This is another instance, and perhaps the most important one in which evolutionism has been proven wrong. Only 5% of the genome codes for gene. The genes are merely the factories of the human organism all they do is produce proteins and RNA which become part of the structure of the organism or become catalysts for the chemical reactions needed for life. The important work goes on in the remaining 95% of the genome. It is that part of the genome which tells the genes what to do.