The issue was addressed. I even allowed for 250,000 times more potential cytochrome C candidates and demonstrated that even that large a number is miniscule in comparison to the universe being perused. And cytochrome C is a very small protein.
Computing cell is the answer. Research is demonstrating that fact.
“The issue was addressed. I even allowed for 250,000 times more potential cytochrome C candidates and demonstrated that even that large a number is miniscule in comparison to the universe being perused. And cytochrome C is a very small protein.”
—But who’s to say that cytochrome C had to form at all for there to be life? If it can be demonstrated that cytochrome C HAD to form for life to exist, than perhaps the deck of cards analogy might fit. The gene for cytochrome C obviously DID form at some point, and thus variants of it are found throughout many different genomes - but the problem with your analogy isn’t merely that the protein can vary, but with the presumption that the protein HAD to form at all for life to exist.
Even if it were discovered that the universe is teeming with life, I’d be quite surprised to say the least if we found that another lifeform somewhere unrelated to life on earth has a gene for cytochrome C.
The issue was addressed.
Yes, by me, by pointing out all the many things that were fatally wrong with it.
I even allowed for 250,000 times more potential cytochrome C candidates and demonstrated that even that large a number is miniscule in comparison to the universe being perused. And cytochrome C is a very small protein.
That's nice. How does that make your five-fold fallacious shuffling examine relevant as a model of whether evolution can work? Oh, right, it doesn't. Your attempt was bogus and disingenuous, and you were caught at it. Deal with it.
Additionally, your subsequent handwaving about the rarity of hitting an *exact* functional equivalent of cytochrome-c still utterly fails to deal with another fact of biological evolution I pointed out earlier, so why are you still sticking to this fallacious "exact hit" analogy? Read my Post #36 AGAIN (you know, the post in which I pointed out all the ways your deck-shuffling analogy was highly bogus), especially the passage which reads, "and even more greatly vast numbers are partially functionally equivalent (and thus a basis for evolutionary refinement)". All of your number-crunching attempts to pretend that there's some sort of probability argument against evolution fail to address that very salient fact, and thus are utterly fallacious. Why do you bother calculating things that don't actually capture the reality in any comprehensive way? Don't bother with your usual non-answers, I *KNOW* why you do that. Don't kid yourself that it's not transparent to just about everyone else too.
Computing cell is the answer.
Not when the question is, "why does AndrewC keep making bogus arguments against evolution and then fail to face up to it when he's caught at it", no. Nor does this "answer" in any way salvage the numerous fatal fallacies in your post.
Research is demonstrating that fact.
Whatever fact you're so vaguely alluding to here is a Red Herring, an attempt to divert attention from the fact that you were caught making a very bogus argument that falls flat on its face in five different ways.
Even if it's true that the cell computes, this doesn't mean that evolution is like shuffling cards, nor that crunching the numbers on card-shuffling is going to tell us *squat* about what evolution can or can not do. So again I ask, why the bogus card-shuffling dance, and why the dodging on your part when I point out exactly why your dance completely fails as a model of evolution? Evolution is a very different process from card-shuffling -- why do you pretend otherwise?
Focus: Tell us which of the options in my post #46 best describes your reasons for failing to admit that shuffling cards is a bogus analogy for the process of biological evolution.