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.
Blah, blah, blah you assert. Read the thread. I was answering a question concerning the appearance of chance. That led to an assertion about having the time to do things. Which led to me showing that numbers get big quickly.
The thing about cytochrome C is that it exists and it is quite simple to explain modifications to it that still maintain function. The problem is to adequately explain its genesis without a just so story.
And the numbers outline the universe involved whatever you think of it. There are around 10132 sequences involved in the search space.
And I really don't a rats behind about what you think. Research is showing that the cell computes.