Codes, Evolution, and Intelligent Design

Let's rephrase your argument a bit:All known codes are of human origin.DNA is a code.Therefore DNA is of human origin.Hopefully it can be seen that this conclusion is a non sequitur.The fact that all known codes are of human origin, even if correct (and I think that point is disputable), does not rule out the possibility of one of natural origin.

I've been following this discussion, and it seems to me that you really haven't made any progress.No matter how you define "code" (and you've moved the goalposts quite readily on this), your argument still boils down to:1) All known codes are of human origin, i.e were developed by humans for purposeful use by humans2) DNA is a codeThe only structurally valid conclusion to the argument is:3) DNA is of human origin - it was developed by humans for purposeful use by humansHowever, we can rule out 3) on the basis of other information. So there is something wrong with the argument exclusive of structure, because its conclusion is absurd.Probably it is that the premise 1) is not valid. What you have to prove, and have so far failed to , is that1) a "code" MUST be of intelligent origin by definition2) The fact that codes of human, canine, or avian origin (to name a few examples that have presented) exist is logically connected with the (asserted, but not yet proven) existence of an intelligence of non- human, canine, or avian character.I think both points have been well refuted here.You are asserting "See, see, all codes are known to have been developed by humans, with intent - this means DNA was the result of ID !"I'm sorry. It simply does not follow.