I will challenge one thing you have said, that is your and yockey's use of
the probability numbers for the total number of cytochrome c's that are
possible. There will always be the need to exceed the data in this area,
but the number you use for the number of unique functional cytochrome c
molecules (10^93) is off by a factor of 10^90 at present. There is no
assurance that a substitution of aa1 in molecule "x" will allow that
substitution in molecule "y". Since the functional and structural behavior
if cytochrome c is determined by a *combination* of amino acids, each
*potential* new combination would have to be tested (in a ilving system in
which it occurs) before it could be included in the sample. It is glib and
naive to assert that any amino acid found at a specific site in the
cytochrome c molecule validates that amino acid for that site with all
other valid amino acids at other sites. This is an assumption tha Yockey
wrongly makes in developing his statistic. In any case, even using
Yockey's assumptions (which are untested and illogical), that raises the
liklihood of coming up with a cytochrome c by chance 1 in 10^90 tries. I
don't feel too uncomfortable asserting that something other than chance was
involved.