Anyways I tried to watch as much as I could of the Venemas videos, but the order and titles of the videos (and slow talking) make it difficult.
Dennis is pointing out a problem for ID, as in parts being unreasonably (redundant) copied in (supposed) related species. It is rather odd for an intelligent designer to include such redundancy if no further use is intended for the redundant code (parts or results of the DNA code input).
This is hard to explain, maybe the redundancy is what gives similar form, or gives the similar parts the similar appearance (or similar unusable functions). The unused similar parts may be what gave them the similarity making the hypothesis itself redundant. Maybe God intended them to be used pre-Fall or something, yet temporarily disabled. I know there are variants that seem to have no-further purpose and it would be hard to determine either way without really verifiable positive assurance to what we are trying to look at. After all we are looking at a code encrypted on acid only visible under an electron microscope. God ‘could’ use codes from other species does that mean God is lazy? I think rather we really don’t know why yet, and as usual it is science that changes multiple by multiple times more often than any biological form can be proven or seen to change. But since I am short on time, I will assume that there is redundant DNA, and I don’t know what the reason is.
That said, if it is redundant DNA, does this therefore demand, mean or prove there is 'no' design
No, many designed products and reproduced items are covered and full of redundant and seemingly unused area and seemingly unused function from a shared design or product . This is more common with raw equipment than none, but as far as I can see all the ‘equipment’ sustained by the code in the biological forms such as Dennis points to (such as olfactory senses of smell) are functional and purposeful designs in the other creatures, thus they are not weird unidentifiable appendages or woops in the code, but actually are necessary to the design and function in the creature using that function in the code (Note that un-designed products show no similarity in design because there is ‘nothing’ to show similarity). So what I am saying is; the code originally in the original creature (or lifeform) produces a highly incredible function that demonstrates superfantastic idea and design (such as smell, and hearing, taste, etc.), that the code may show up in another species does not lessen the fact that it took design to produce it in the first place.
Truman, before going back under the microscope, don’t you find it hard to look at a computer, automobile, building, mouse trap, toaster, or backyard sprinkler system and say to yourself; well if you look at the code book and building plans you will find in there a clue as to how the plans actually wrote themselves.
