I have made no such claim on this subject
Then you hould separate your argument from your "evidence". Your evidence is more often than not, an evidence -free conclusion and . Your conclusions have almost always been connected to random clips from popular Intelligent Design blogs and news.
Your most recent assertion was that DNA supports ID, HOW? anybody can announce their conclusion but avoid any data.
Ive never done that to you. I have always tried to associate my tatement with ongoing work in the field.(You, most often tend to ignore the real scientific literature)
I think you should spend less time on making grand conclusionary assertions and spending more time explaining how those assertions actually work and "fit" an ID model. Sorta "Wheres the Beef?"
The best counter argument is the old 'enough monkeys at keyboards will eventually write Windows 10 OS (and all of Shakespeare's works). ' If that’s all you got, that’s all you got. I wouldn’t bet on it though.
Actually you are the one who livs n a phrase that if it appears like a barcode an its complex (as we know life is), Its gotta be a product of an intelligent esigner
Your above quote never came from a scientist. It fails to understand that electron capture (a very basic steering wheel in natures chemistry) "edits" (To use your comparison to coding) the biochemical phrases. We can create the chemistry of life by setting up early earth wnvironments and seeing what happens . The Miller and Urey xpwrimnt you poo poo;d was mrely a start in that ntire arena of experiment. Many of the results, are presented almost monthly in journals like EVOLUTION orMICROBIOLOGY Youd really be surprised how certain, of, the list of chemicals CAUTG, the only one we are not able to see assemble sustainably in a free range lab is C (because its unstable in low temps) .While AUTG are unstable in high temps, they dont degrade in low temps.
All this from some chemicals of deadly N based poisons in pools of rusty swamps .
In order for your argument to be even worthy of consideration (besides the stating the relevance of how you see life being formed under your hypothesis of "Intelligent Direction" , you need to explain how this designer was able to control all the earth processes that provide the raw materials for life. Geochem can explain it fairly easily . AND, it can be done all randomly, as long as we have a set bag of compounds like water ,halogen salts, phosphoric acid, cyanide, formamide, Mthane, ethane, ,ammonia, and, of course ALKALI metals.
You seemed to accept that the development of these chemical groups can freely form in nature. Then, if I understood what you think happens next, you conclude that "a miracle happens".
I can understand how Bill Gates (and you and others) can use a "Bar code" , if an analogy is needed. Genes do , on cursory inspection have visual aspects of comparison to coding. However a gene has many more levels of complexity and actual dimensions in space all of which react and reassemble based on time , the environment, and available enzymes and catalysts. Thats why we see the functional relationships between helical biotic molecules and same structures in inorganic chemical (mostly iron) salts and molecules common to life.
Coincidentally, they first occurred at an opportune moment in time when certain chemicals became more available , all based upon electron capture and a simple palette of chemicals, and the assembly and some compounds that could act as enzymes and catalysts. All this then, needed a comfortable environmental condition for assembly and replication.
Science is busy trying to understand the origins of life, but evolution (not the same thing) is fairly well understood and the conditions for evolution are mostly xternal to the organism, where adaptation is expressed in adaptive changes of body and function, or extinction.
From the fossil record alone, we have rally good knowledge of how things happened and as we learn more, our original "simple minded" relationships between mother and daughter species has shown to be amazingly complex and is usually always associated with some big environmental change or an actual catastrophe.
How does your Intelligent designer fit in with changes to the environment that seem to spur radical changes in species? Does it plan extinction events or regional species isolation events (like the drying of the Mediterranean basin that define the separation of African v European species), Or the Wallace line where the separate species lists between Asiatic v Autralian species are slwoly being dissolved by intermingling due to the fact that Autralia and SE Asia are gliding towards ach other.
So much evidence based information supports random evolution that, to deny it would take way more than conclusionary statements with no technical backup.