No, it does not. Analogies are explanatory devices that in biology, ALWAYS break down, even when they are useful. Analogies are not, and never will be, arguments.
Have you ever considered examining and citing the actual data, instead of relentlessly misinterpreting the words written about the data?
That would be a welcome change.
Analogies are literary and rhetorical devices that are used to explain concepts. Analogies are never the thing itself. In fact, it is a logical fallacy to base an argument on an analogy:
No. I meant what I said. That is why I said it.
You have not established that âanalogy is an umbrella termâ, you have merely asserted it.
But regardless, neither analogy nor simile establishes that the two things under comparison are âidenticalâ, âalmost identicalâ, or âhighly similarâ.
Utter and complete balderdash!
Nothing that you have stated has come close to âsaying analoguos and almost identical are essentially the same thingâ. The words have very different meanings. And you do not establish the meanings of words by (i) quoting scientific papers and (ii) providing a definition for a word that is only mentioned by the scientific paper.
That natural languages share a "universal grammar between themselves and that âa 'quasi-universal grammarâ underlies the evolution of domain architectures in all divisions of cellular lifeâ Again between themselves), does not mean that these two grammars are the same. There is nothing in the text to suggest that they are talking about the same grammar, just one grammar that is universal to natural languages and another one that is quasi-universal to cellular life.
I, and practically everybody else on this thread, have demonstrated repeatedly why the papers you cite do not provide evidence supporting the claims.
In fact it is not clear that you have convinced anybody of even one of your claims, or even roused a suspicion that you might be right.
We have likewise questioned whether you even understand these papers you cite.
Weâve done our due diligence. There is no indication that you have done yours.
Again, this is evidence that @Meerkat_SK5 is wholly incapable of learning from criticism.
No.
The existence of a common grammar only leads to the possibility that it has some common source, not the certainty of it. And there is no evidence that this common source is a common designer. It is far more likely as the paper suggests that the reason for this commonality is that they evolved from a common ancestral language.
Where did you tell me before? Citation to exact post please. Your argumentation has been so verbose and mendacious, that it is quite impossible to keep track of all the strange and unlikely claims youâve made.
If your âargument does NOT require them to be the same or identicalâ, then you need to make clear what it does require.
If this was not the point of your argument then it is not clear why you bring up this issue over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
Your âcaseâ would likely fail to avoid even a motion for summary judgement against it, so would likely not even come to trial. 
Yeah, geez. How often does one have to explain this? Analogy isnât an argument, and analogy isnât identity. Itâs a helpful (when it isnât a hindrance!) mental stunt.
If you can explain this in such a way that gets through, I (and I suspect nearly everybody on this thread) will happily crown you King of the Thread, and most eloquent and convincing person ever. 
Heck, if anyone can explain anything to him in a way that actually gets through, I think thatâs going to be worthy of that crown. Iâm still watching to see if it ever happens. Not yet.
At the top of post 151, I saidâŚ
âI am arguing for a common designer representing God and man but my argument does not require them to be the same. So this part of your objection is irrelevant. The fact is there is a strong analogy between both languages and thatâs what matters.â
Again, I agree. This is why I slightly changed the way I constructed my argument because I went about it the wrong way. The experiments I provided are what proves that it was a common designer
No no no , this is not an argument at all, but its an empirical claim derived from the studies I provided.
My argument is that if we combine these observations with the experiments that show how an intelligent designer is required to create life, then we can go a step further and say that a common designer is required to create life.
Yes, I have read that study and I asked @Tim to show me where they suggested that the analogy between the similar mathematical structures underlying both languages was meant to be metaphorical.
âEmpirical claimâ makes no sense to me as a scientist, and youâre ignoring the empirical aspects of every study youâre citing. That was the reason I asked you:
Why did you start your reply with âyesâ when your answer is very clearly ânoâ?
We donât have any experiments that show that.
Youâre not looking at a single datum from any experiment. Youâre just looking at the words written about the experiments.
Please reread and reconsider your answer to my question.
No, I am not ignoring those aspects when I cite them. I am asking you guys to support your own claims about the studies I present after I have thoroughly looked over them. Eventually, I end up ignoring your claims altogether because I canât find it in the study I cite.
Read post 127 on here.
Yes, you are.
Youâre only looking at the words. Thatâs the antithesis of scientific thoroughness.
Because youâre not looking at the data, just the words.
How does that post show that you arenât just looking at the words?
I am not sure I understand your point now. When I donât understand something fully, I go to the experts to break it down.
That obviously isnât true, as you ignore the various experts who post here. You have, for example, ignored at least two corrections on your âbar-codingâ assertion from actual biologists who do DNA sequencing.
If I thought that there was only one problem here, thatâd probably just about sum it up. You donât know how to read the papers and you donât know how to let experts help you understand them or put anything into any sort of context. You only know how to get frustrated at the fact that nobody agrees with you, and then assume that the experts know nothing but that youâve got it worked out correctly.
That, together with the inability to understand that analogies are actually just analogies, amounts to a comprehensive failure of understanding. And thatâs just the appetizer.
Not at all, I accepted it and moved on after that objection and did not bring it up again.
In fact, there are many more instances like this. I donât have time to list them now but stay tuned for most likely the final topic I create that will be a updated revised version of my case.
But you didnât say anything, so nobody can know you did. Just asking for a little elementary consideration here. What goes on inside your head is known only to you unless you mention it.
Do you perhaps recall that we were going to discuss common descent at some point?
Not bringing it up again does not communicate that you accepted the corrections.
This comment is ambiguous in the extreme.
It does not state in what way âa common designerâ ârepresentsâ âGod and manâ. This means that we have no way of knowing what level of similarity, if any, supports your argument.
Itâs claim that your âargument does not require them to be the sameâ is certainly undercut by your harping on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about identity/near-identity between DNA and language. This certainly gives every impression that you consider âidenticalâ to be in some way crucial to your argument.
Iâll fix this for you:
Yes, I have read that study and I asked @Tim to show me where they suggested that the analogy between the similar mathematical structures underlying both languages was meant to be analogous.
Neither I, nor the paper, have stated that any relationship is âmetaphoricalâ. It is only you who have been harping about that term, on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on.
The paper stated that the relationship was that of analogy.
Likewise the paper did not state that there was any significant level of âsimilarityâ between DNA and human language. You merely conflated analogy with significant similarity. But as I showed above, that does not hold.
You may note that I emphasised âon and on and âŚâ twice in this post â this is because I am getting increasingly tired and frustrated by your endless argumentum ad nauseam.
When you have made essentially the same argument multiple times, I do not see any obligation to give a detailed response to your later iterations.
Many, many creationists make this âanalogy is identityâ mistake all the time. We have had bizarre discussions here where someone keeps telling us that âhumans are the test bedâ for ID hypotheses, and seems utterly incapable of understanding that if youâre testing divine design, human design is at best an analogy â a poor one, but of course, it wouldnât matter if it were a good one because an analogy is only an analogy.
But the difference, I think, here is that even in those cases, where people are completely ineducable, they generally DO understand that argument by analogy is no good. So they strain and fuss and burn the ends off of words and obfuscate in order to figure out a way to deny that their arguments by analogy are, in fact, arguments by analogy. They get that an argument by analogy can establish nothing, and so they rail against their analogies being analogies.
Here, I donât think that youâre talking to someone who even understands the complete and utter worthlessness of an analogy when what is needed is empirical demonstration. I think this is a couple of layers of perdition below that. And I think people like that, though you may feel sorry for them, just cannot be saved.
Yes, the conversation has gone well beyond the point of being unproductive. Iâm just too stubborn for my own good.