"i was not the one claiming any specialness in DNA."
Good! That makes zero of us who were, then. It appears we are all on the same page here. :)
"the appeal to authority fallacy."
The appeal to authority is only a fallacy if the authority (person) being appealed to doesn't actually possess the authority (right to rule and exercise power) claimed by the person making the argument. Parents who use the "because I said so" answer when their children ask "why do I have to do this?" are appealing to authority (their own) but are not necessarily fallacious in doing so. Likewise, since God possesses authority to tell us what's right and wrong and whatever else He wants, appealing to His standard does not trigger the fallacy. Of course, you don't find that authority legitimate (or even existent), and so the fallacy appears quite real to you, but that's a problem you'd have to take up with Him.
"I don't see this claim as valuable in the formation of laws which represent all people, some kind of common legal framework."
Democratically speaking, I agree with you, and therefore, in a strategic sense, it seems like a non-starter to me at the present time. But as to whether it's a Good Idea as a foundation for public policy, I'll have to disagree with your assessment. Again, no real surprises there.
"'(e.g. committing murder yourself, putting someone else's life in clear and definite danger, having entered an army that's going to war)' wow, i didn't see those exceptions in the bible"
You evidently didn't look hard enough.
"you allow exceptions to killing where it empowrs the state, but not when it empowers women... Odd choice, we may be back to anti-woman territory."
Actually, we're in Romans 13.4 territory here: "if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it [i.e. the state power] does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil." Very consistent with Genesis 9.6, in fact.
"Is it ok to kill because the state sanctions it?"
Not ipso facto, no.
"In wartime..."
Much depends on the purpose of the war. If the purpose is aggression and expansion beyond borders simply because those who happen to be in government at the time wish to do so, then no, there is no justification for it. But if the state is deputizing a number of its people as soldiers with orders to defend against an invasion, then soldiers, as agents of the state power, are justified in killing their enemy counterparts -- with emphases on them killing enemy soldiers in particular and on their doing so as agents of the state power and not on their own initiative without state authorization.
"... or capital punishment?"
Capital punishment is certainly warranted in cases of murder, and the right to carry it out is restricted to the governing authorities (what my friends like to call, using the old-style term, the "civil magistrate"). Under what circumstances and by what means it is advisable for the state to actually exercise this power are separate questions. But just because the state happens to be mighty, this is hardly sufficient reason to deny it the power to execute murderers.
"Richard Dawkins answer here is sufficient."
Oh, the disappointment! But I certainly appreciate the candor.
"Unless that hunger is for war, oil, exploitation of natural resources, or to protect the property of those who have more."
I don't believe I ever advocated for those things (although I would happily advocate for protection of property of those who have honestly come by it; that's also a biblical principle), and certainly I never suggested that I was referring to hunger in anything other than the sense of a need for physical nourishment and sustenance. You're certainly welcome to expand its meaning metaphorically if you suits you, but be aware that doing so moves us off to the side of the point that I had been making.
"What requirement do you have for norm setting?"
Scriptural warrant or clear and obvious inferences therefrom. Note that this limits the number of available options substantially, but it does not narrow them always to one, nor does it obviate the need to think carefully about what the Bible actually DOES warrant or about how to best/properly apply them in a given set of circumstances. Sometimes there are gray areas, and then prudence and wisdom should be used in developing societal norms (house rules, one might call them) and restraint and care used in enforcing them.
I will clarify one bit more that when I say Scriptural warrant, I don't mean a verse lifted out here or there and violently reshaped to suit one's own particular goals, without any reference to what it is actually meaning to say. I don't deny that this happens, of course (including among people who should know better), but neither do I confirm that this kind of misuse eliminates the Bible as a useable authoritative basis for norms.
"Are you actually rejecting the position that we should protect these qualities?"
No, I just wondered what your basis was for according them the primacy that you do. That's all.
"I don't have to go and prove that we evolved morality to protect social groups."
Well, you might have to prove that this is actually the historical origin of morality, but if you mean that it gets used this way in practice in the present day, then no, you don't have to prove that.