>Is there a distinction to be made between the characters and the message
>conveyed? It is true that given so many monkeys with typewriters they can
>eventually type all the works of Shakespeare, but how do they know that the
>task was completed?
I am not talking about monkeys and typewriters. I am talking about
functionality mapped onto sequence space. Billions upon billions of
different sequences perform the same function (in the case of language
convey the same message in biology catalyze the same reaction). Language is
an analogy and is used so often by the antievolutonists. Let me make a note
that I once calculated over 330 thousand different ways to say "I pick my
nose". I quite because I was bored. This is similar to Yockey's calcuation
of lots of different cytochrome c's
The point is, Moorad, you and other antievolutionists say that it is
impossible to find a workable biological molecule due to the immense
probability against it. I gave you an example of a 394 unit long workable
molecule found in 2 years. This is observational evidence which refutes
very strongly what you are saying. Show my why Gerald Joyce's work didn't
work, or admit that your probability argument is moot.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm