Put there by a designer of course, Nam. Otherwise you're forced to say, "Genes are just the way they are for no reason. Just luck."Genes are the way they are because they're passed on from the parents; luck doesn't have a whole lot to do with it, except in which particular set of chromosomes get passed on.
No. From whence did the first gene come? Are you saying a gene just appeared one day with a random function?
Here's the problem, Skep. You are trying so very very hard to redefine science so that you can diss it. And, from your perspective, you're doing a grand job. But your fertile brain farts are not worthy of discussion, because you don't have, nor do you want, the slightest idea of what science really is.
You are busy honing in on details that are irrelevant to the discussion you are trying to carry on. How did this start, how did that start, when did this come into being, when did that come into being. First of all, even if we knew you wouldn't believe us, and since nobody is yet sure of the specifics, or the timetable, it is impossible for us to give you answers that meet your made up criteria.
You are not asking what is important, you are deciding where the import lies, and ignoring all other input, which is where the information is.
Science does not have all the answers. It doesn't pretend to. But it has even fewer answers if you are going to insist on concentrating on tiny details at the expense of everything else.
I can imagine you watching as NASCAR race. Instead of watching the cars, if you used your current obsessions, you would stare at one tiny spot on the track and try to figure out if it was actually a race and if there could be a winner if not every car drove over that precise spot.
I suggest that you give this stuff up. We can't possibly provide answers to questions if you're not willing to ask them. And you appear to have no intention of doing your part.