The origin of genomes be it DNA or RNA go back to before LUCA. This is not an assumption. Its in the data you don’t bother checking.
You really love to embarrass yourself by putting up your ignorance for all to see. Tell me what translation and transcription have to do with the Wright-Fisher model? Do you even know what the Wright-Fisher model is?
And fitness preserves function.
Look at the evolutionary biology literature, do you see ID being used for anything? Look at the ID literature, do you see anything that provides evidence for ID claims? The answers to both questions is a big NO! ID is useless.
Read papers on molecular evolution and you will see gene duplication, fusion, exaptation, mutations etcetera mentioned or investigated as mechanisms for the origin and evolution of biochemical structures and systems. You don’t see ID, because it is a vacuous and practically useless idea. More importantly, ID ideas like the inability to evolve irreducible complexity have been beaten to death. I repeat, ID is bunk and offers no help to biological research.
Be rest assured my thoughts are in line with current evidence. You, on the other hand, has refused to exit your fantasy world.
Not all DNA sequences are functional. For example, during mRNA processing, introns are removed and degraded by nucleases simply because they serve no function in the protein or RNA molecule to be derived from the stitched up exons. Similarly, not all protein sequences are functional.
Don’t you see this is contradictory? If randomly changing DNA inevitably moves it towards nonfunctionality, then cancers should not exist since they make their metabolic machinery hyperfunctional to sustain their abnormal way of life.
For example, mutations to the receptor for the Epidermal Growth Factor (EGF) protein can permanently activate the receptor even in the absence of its stimulatory signal (EGF protein). This hyperfunctional receptor protein goes on to drive tumorigenesis.
So you are now an advocate of neutral theory. Great. However, you misunderstand it.
Neutral theory states that most mutations which affect fitness are deleterious, making purifying selection the predominant mode of natural selection as it moves to eliminate these deleterious mutations. In addition, a large fraction of genomes like ours are evolving by genetic drift because mutations that affect those parts are effectively neutral. If these parts are neutral, then they are most likely nonfunctional (junk DNA). For example, most introns accumulate substitutions a lot faster than the exons they separate since they are nonfunctional.
Do you accept a large portion of your genome is junk, since it is beset by a lot of neutral mutations? (Remember you are now an advocate of neutral theory).