We're not talking about form or strategies for survival here. We're talking about biochemical organization. Why would a designer use only one possibility? Why use DNA at all? For that matter, why use chemistry at all?
What is unimaginative or lazy about using chemistry or DNA?
A designer might very well repeat strategies that work. How does your argument compare to the argument that a designer would not develop vision, flight, or echolocation using different methods? In my opinion, both arguments are fubar. Designers might reuse systems, but they also might create a variety of systems. Why do the vast majority of cars and trucks rely on burning petrol? But then why are some moving systems using natural gas, while others are completely electric?
And why couldn't a designer build some basic prototypes and then allow evolution to fill in the rest? Wouldn't that explain some of the similarities we see?
I think there are ways to question the design choices of the putative ID man, but I don't think questions like why use DNA are very good questions. DNA systems seem to work quite well. Why avoid them?
Here is a goofy question. Why are all living systems biological?
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson
Not really, it is a theory that is imposed on nature so consistently that you think you are observing it. -- Faith
Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000
™ Version 4.2