“Not silly at all, except to people who think such things spring into existence without cause for no reason whatsoever.”
—How that statement is a response to anything I said is beyond me.
“Argument from ignorance noted.”
—Actually, what YOU are doing is precisely the argument from ignorance fallacy: Unless one can rule out all the other possibilities as invalid, one can’t say that ONE option is the only possibility - to do otherwise IS the argument from ignorance fallacy.
(And actually, we DO know that MANY variations of proteins will work since we all have such variations!)
And since you had no idea, I showed in post 49 (for the case of cytochrome C) how miniscule that number is compared to other sequences.
No, you are the one who said, " None of us have any idea how many “useful” proteins could potentially exist, or what the odds are of producing such a protein." That is the fallacy of argument from ignorance because you are assuming that 'useful' proteins could potentially exist when you don't know that they exist. This could also be called the fallacy of appeal to probability because you appeal to something that 'could' happen.
"Unless one can rule out all the other possibilities as invalid, one can’t say that ONE option is the only possibility - to do otherwise IS the argument from ignorance fallacy."
No, that is you committing the perfect solution fallacy by arguing that unless it has been proven that there is only one solution that you can ignore the evidence against non-teleological processes forming 'useful' proteins..