“I didn’t realize you were defending creation.”
—Why would this discussion necessitate defending either?
“Feel free to propose sets of universal physical laws other than the ones we observe and explain how they would support life.”
—I have no idea how many other sets of laws may produce life, do you?
“Feel free to propose random, racemic amino-acid chains and explain how those support life. We observe specified order throughout the physical laws of universe and in life.”
—I couldn’t tell how the vast majority of known proteins support life. I could produce a random string of amino acids, but neither I nor you would have a clue as to whether it may be useful to life or not. We don’t all produce the same proteins - each of us produce variations of proteins, and other species produce other variations and other completely different proteins.
This is why all the arguments about the odds of *A* particular protein forming are silly and irrelevant. None of us have any idea how many “useful” proteins could potentially exist, or what the odds are of producing such a protein.
Not silly at all, except to people who think such things spring into existence without cause for no reason whatsoever.
" None of us have any idea how many “useful” proteins could potentially exist, or what the odds are of producing such a protein."
Argument from ignorance noted.