Really? According to Hubert Yockey's (**) analysis you are only off
by a factor of about 10^90. Not even good enough for us engineers :).
(**) <Information Theory and Molecular Biology>, Cambridge University
Press, 1992.
> of usually more than 100 (50 to 1000) amino acids of which
>there are about twenty to choose from. So each portion of a part, the
>protein, is composed of scores, perhaps hundreds, of subparts or
>building blocks, the amino acids, and there are twenty different kinds
>of building blocks which must also be flawlessly selected, sequenced,
>joined and made to function according to a unique blueprint.
Where is this blueprint?
>The first
>paragraph renders a superficial description properly known as
>irreducible complexity. This slightly deeper look may be called
>irreducible complexity squared.
>
>And this isn't the whole story either. The further we go, the greater
>the complexity and the more incredible the level of nanoengineering
>required for even one cell. In my opinion, Behe's book is one of the
>most powerful refutations of "evolution" to come along in the last 100
>years.
>
Really? My impression was that it was a critique of Darwinism,
not evolution.
>Note. I put "evolving" and "evolution" in quote marks because the idea,
>more than 2,000 years old, exists and has existed only as a fallacy.
>
>Joseph Mastropaolo
>
>
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University
"It appears to me that this author is asking
much less than what you are refusing to answer"
-- Galileo (as Simplicio in _The Dialogue_)