The greatest record of a species, of all species, is the DNA, but even this has limitations. DNA as a means of determining a proof of the single pair of human parents of all humans is confounded by the way the male's Y-chromosomes seem to disappear from their descendents rather rapidly. (Y-chromosomes also come from the genes of the maternal father and so descendents can lose the DNA of a pure male parents' line within a few generations.) Another problem seems to be the lack of DNA from our ancestors. We also seem to be able to determine our non-human ancestors rather more accurately than we do the human ones. Imagine trying to trace evolutionary paths after a few iterations of copy-and-paste in the animal kingdom and if Adam resulted from a similar operation too.
The mapping of the Homo sapiens human genome has revealed more than one hundred genes that are not used. Now that is an observation. Based on religion or training that observation may be phrased differently e.g., "… one hundred genes are no longer used." This implies something not apparent in the observation, for instance from an expectation, that evolution is the source of these unused genes. Many conclusions in the theory of evolution derive from such observations and generalities.
In addition, the changes of state need millions and millions of years to make them more believable. This introduces the need for 'missing links' to bridge the conceptual jumps necessary to move from the one state to the next.
The recording and analysing of DNA records, use computers extensively. This is interesting because a computer program may also contain many routines that are unused in that program. These are located in libraries of common or general-purpose routines and are typically part of the purchased programming language package. All programs will use some of the routines, but only a very strange program would use all of the routines - perhaps only a manufacturer's test program.
If human designers see value in leaving unused portions of code in their programs, why shouldn't the Creator himself do so as well? He has developed this thing for programming and shaping life forms called DNA, a library of common routines for building eyes, ears, brains, limbs etc. He has developed a method for defining small differences in each of these for different species, which may live in different environments, called genes. He has a variety of programming techniques that takes humans years of study to understand. It seems reasonable to leave a few unused genes in the DNA. It even indicates the method He might have used to create such a variety of creatures - by copying a known good and tested idea from an existing species to create either something similar or even something vastly different. Programmers (and others) call this copy-and-paste.
One day, millions and millions of years from now, scientists will observe these unused portions of code and call them 'fossil routines' because this will support the theory that all computer programs came from a single ancestor program. Over thousands of years, small differences … okay this is stupid, I know, but just as stupid as saying evolution is the only way that we came into being.
There is a 'self help' built into the DNA model. It is most profound. Darwin observed it, without understanding how it happened, in his famous 'finches' observation, how finches had adapted quite significantly in various places around the world. His equally famous conclusion from the observation has extrapolated from being 'evolution within the species' to the dangerous and inconclusive 'evolution of the species.' Almost without exception when asked for proof of evolution, evolutionists offer examples of this self-help within the species. The problem, of course, is that the other takes millions and millions of years, just to observe. No one these days, is prepared to wait that long.
