First you were complaining that I didn't include structurally distinct insect wings into my calculations.
No, I didn't do that. I complained that you didn't include structurally distinct
proteins in your calculations, since you should have done so.
Now, after I included a trillion of them, although observation shows that there are not even a thousand, let alone a trillion of structurally distinct ways to occupy a particular niche, you complain that this number is not justified.
How could observation possibly show that there are not even a thousand different proteins that could contribute to insect wings? According to the theory you're attacking, insect wings have evolved exactly once. That means we have a single sample of the possible proteins that could have been involved. Where are these other observations coming from?
Of course the number is justified, and not only justified, but also way too generous towards your theory.
Sorry, but saying "it's justified" isn't a justification. Have you ever done any kind of scientific research yourself? You seem not to know what constitutes scientific evidence or how scientists actually justify things.
It is just that your a prior commitment to darwinism can't allow this theory to be false, so you are inventing all sorts of excuses as to why my calculations are wrong.
Horsefeathers. Inventing motivations and assigning then to me is just as futile as inventing numbers and doing calculations with them; in neither case do you have any basis for your claims. Why would I have a prior commitment to "darwinism"? I was raised as a creationist and I was trained as a physicist -- neither entails any commitment to evolution. I accepted evolution because it works, as an explanation and as a way of predicting new data. I reject your argument because I'm quite capable of recognizing bad arguments in my field of professional expertise.
Regarding you complain about evolving a particular gross morphology. Like I have said, it is gross morphology what occupies niches in nature. For that reason, gross morphology is required to occupy a forest niche.
I'm not complaining that you're considering gross morphology. I'm complaining that you have no idea how different gross morphologies translate into what you're calculating, which is the number of proteins possible. One gross morphology can result from many different proteins, and many different morphologies can result from the same proteins. You've made no attempt to connect to real biology at all. How many new proteins are actually involved in insect wings? Are any? The wings are basically just layers of chitin, which already existed in insects.
And no, I see no reason to move on to a different set of equally baseless numbers.
