Uyi Iredia:

That Theunissen misrepresented Carl Weiland. BTW Have you read it ? Do you intend to read it ?

Obviously, you've not read the article you posted. Neither did you read the one I posted. This is from the article you posted.

I also agree that the CSF's gives the impression that Patterson is saying
there *are* no transitional forms (in the sense of a direct `parent-child'
relationship), when he is saying there is no way to *know* that any
particular fossil is such a direct transitional form.

What exactly is the misrepresentation you're talking about? Patterson agreed with Theunissen's interpretation of what he (Patterson) was saying.

Uyi Iredia:

@ bolded This is akin to saying the software on your computer are mere magnetic polarities (which is the physical expression of a code).

It is not like saying software are mere magnetic polarities. I hope you realize that a code is:

Wikipedia:
a rule for converting a piece of information (for example, a letter, word, phrase, or gesture) into another form or representation (one sign into another sign), not necessarily of the same type.

Uyi Iredia:
Molecules is also an abstract concept that's why its ambigous and maps to many physical materials e.g water, salt, ozone etc.

No, molecules are actually physical structures. Water, salt and ozone are molecules that can be represented in code H₂O, NaCl and O₃ respectively.

Uyi Iredia:
BTW the method of working out the relationship is by linguistic analysis which only goes ,more to show that it is a code. Agreed. the DNA is a molecule but, and this is very critical. its arrangement is not haphazard but according to very precise means if not the DNA molecule itself becomes useless.

Linguistic analysis is one of the ways by which certain aspects of the molecule is understood when they're represented as a code. There are many other tools used in analysing it that have nothing to do with linguistic analysis. What degree of precision are you talking about? Keep in mind the large number of nucleotides it has.

Uyi Iredia:
Unfortunately, many atheists deny the simple fact that the DNA is a physical object used to encode the body's structure since it can be used as a basis for ID theories.

Many atheists deny what? Are you seriously saying this? Do you think the people that won the Nobel Prize for showing the structure of DNA were intelligent design creationists?

I am for both: one checks the excesses of the other.