The briefer they are, the more invalid, as a rule. Biology is seldom simple, and any attempts to model it with "brief" analysis are pretty much doomed to be fatally oversimplified.
and I have no idea whether you are addressing one who presrents the proponents of ID.
His worship of Behe didn't tip you off?
Be that as it may, I stopped and chuckled at your words, "'random assembly' could take place."
Why? Is it truly your contention that molecules are incapable of joining in random order? Fascinating...
If nothing else, you are a living, breathing, oxymoron.
In what way?
In a word, yes. As for your oxymoronic term "random assembly," it is my contention that once it is an "assembly," the "random" nature takes a back seat to the purpose and function of the assembly, which you were using to demonstrate the (unobserved) mathematical potential for rapid evolution. Or are these "random assemblies" mere junk that have no biological function and thus serve no purpose in the greater cause of survival?
Does that mean the longer they are, the more valid, as a rule? If so, I don't like the rule.