From the Earliest DNA, Did a Map Exist for Far-Flung Generations?

   I once read how in the embryo that becomes a baby, the mapping exists for all the features of what the person will eventually look like, the hair color, facial look -- everything. And, this makes sense -- doesn't it? -- since if a person inherits features, then everything must be passed through the smallest of portals, the very smallest of organisms that is to grow into a person.
   For those who oppose abortion who face the criticism that early on, the embryo is not a human because it bears no human features, the argument is clear: All the features of a human being, even before they are visible, are present in the embryo, indeed, in the zygote.
   But, there is also an argument for the design of man hidden in this. If human features are mapped out before the person becomes what he or she eventually becomes, and they are passed from generation to generation, then at least portions of the map existed as far back as the first -- shall we say -- zygote.
   I'm would guess everyone agrees on that. After all, evolutionists have long spoken of the percentage of DNA in a current person that is the same as that of a person living eons ago.
   Here's what I wonder: Did that earliest of all ancestors include coding within it allowing descendants to differ? The question is very significant, for if the original genetics contain mapping for one descendant to look one way, and another to look another, then there existed from the earliest inception, design. Whether you want to tack the word "intelligent" on it front of it, design, itself, is a fact.
   This runs counter to what current evolution teaches, if I understand correctly. For, my understanding is that evolutionists will tell you there is no design, there is no plan. The creature is molded and changed by its environment, becoming one thing if the environment molds it that way, and another if the environment molds it another.
   If there is advanced life on other planets, the creatures do not look like our humans.
   I look at all the different creatures, and wonder. I look at just the animal kingdom, and wonder. Did a bear become a bear and a horse a horse based solely on differences in environment?
   This is all supposing we believe evolution does mean one creature evolves into another. And, I may share tomorrow a reason for wondering whether that is as true as what current evolutionary thought suggests.