>I realize what Yockey did. At our present state of understanding of the
>effects of amino acid substitution on protein shape, and thus function (it
>is not until this year that we had serious tools for tackling this
>question), I would say that estimations based on Yockey's criteria are
>meaningless. Having said that, I would quickly add that an unspecialized
>protein like cytochrome c probably can take a lot of hits and still be
>viable. Maybe even enough hits so that every human being who ever lived
>could have a different viable cytochrome c. But the fact that we all have
>about the same molecule says that there is an optimum form for each
>organism and that is the basis for the observed differences. Studies on
>mice living in the vicinity of Chernobyl showed that they all were running
>around with variants of cytochrome c, so there must be a gob of the
>possible number that are viable in any case.
OK, Yockey may be an overestimate but even by your admission, the standard
anti-evolutionist argument against evolution is wrong. The standard
argument says that one and only one permutation will function. In fact
Thaxton, Bradley and Olseon, Mystery of lifes Origin says that one and only
one permutation of the 4 million mer long DNA will produce an E. coli. (See
thaxton Bradley and Olson, p. 138) the "-kTln(1)" term means that only 1
permutation will work. This of course is quite wrong.
And when you apply selection as a search algorithm, it becomes quite
probable that one workable molecule will be found. Especially when you
realize the vast number of molecules that have some functionality.
Foundation, Fall and Flood