Can you disprove this secular argument against evolution?

This is your first mistake. Life needs none of those things. Bacteria get along just fine without any of those features. You have these really wrong:"Importantly, Hubert Yockey has done a careful study in which he calculated that there are a minimum of 2.3 x 10^93 possible functional cytochrome c protein sequences, based on these genetic mutational analyses (Hampsey et al. 1986; Hampsey et al. 1988; Yockey 1992, Ch. 6, p. 254). "
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 4There are 1E93 possible combinations of amino acids that will produce a functional cytochrome c protein, and that is just one protein. When you expand this to all functional proteins, your 1E43 calculation appears to be way off.

Let's look at your logic.The vast majority of lottery tickets are losers. Therefore, if someone wins this means that the lottery machine was pre-programmed so that specific person would win.Does that make sense? No.If beneficial mutations are possible then it is only a matter of time until a random mutation is beneficial, just as it is only a matter of time until a random lottery will produce a winner. Since we can see that DNA differences between species are beneficial in those species, then we already know that beneficial mutations can happen. You don't need to preprogram mutations. Random mutations will find those beneficial changes just fine.

I have read her papers. The mechanisms of mutation she points to produce neutral, beneficial, and detrimental mutations. They are random with respect to fitness. Those causes are not tied to fitness in any meaningful manner. A transposon does not jump to one specific genetic locus and only that locus in response to a specific environment stimuli. No one, including McClintock, has shown this to be the case. Transposons jump all over the genome, and those insertions can be neutral, beneficial, or detrimental. The theory of evolution explains the morphology of fossils, genetic divergence between species, and the distribution of physical characteristics seen in living species. All of these things are seen here and now. You also haven't produced a single observation that contradicts the theory. If most random mutations are neutral or harmful, then that means some random mutations are beneficial.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

The same way that we know that fingerprints are not planted at crime scenes by mischievous leprechauns.If you want to claim that mutations are preprogrammed, then you have the burden of proof for showing us the evidence and mechanism by which they are preprogrammed. You don't get to invoke magic without any evidence, and then claim magic is true until someone disproves it. Were those the only mutations that occurred? I guarantee that they weren't.If you have a random process that assigns lottery number and enough trials you will still have two people who have the same numbers on their tickets. Does this mean that the process is not random? No.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Precisely. We can use poker as a good example. After a hand of poker, we can calculate the odds of the winning person getting those exact 5 cards (if my math skills are correct 1/(52!-48!)), and those odds would be extremely low. However, someone wins every hand of poker, even though the odds of getting that winning hand are extremely low.What ID/creationists just can't get their heads around is that the biology we see isn't the only possible outcome. They paint the bullseye around the arrow, thinking that what we see was planned from the start. Contingency isn't a word in their dictionary.

Umm . . . yes it is."Given the fact that most mutations are neutral or harmful, while mutation in British peppered moths resulted in a phenotypic effect(non-neutreal) and it didn't negatively affect the protein-coding capacity of the cortex gene(non-harmful) that indicates that this mutation was pre-programmed in the genome."--forexhrYou are claiming that it had to be pre-programmed because it was a winner. In the case of the peppered moth, we already know that they have a winning lottery ticket. Are you saying that you wouldn't believe anyone who told you that they won the lottery by random chance? Are you saying that someone has to rig the lottery in order for someone to win?

How is it unknown? We can observe transposons jumping randomly within a genome. Even you have said that transposon mutagenesis can result in negative, neutral, or even beneficial changes. That is the very definition of a random process of mutation.

You can also have different 3D structures that perform the same function. That's the part you keep missing.

Just for a bit of background, scientists have been using transposons to randomly change genomes for quite a while now, mostly in bacteria.Transposon mutagenesis - WikipediaAbout 20 years ago, I was "lucky" enough to screen about 3,000 mutants for a specific gene knockout after a round of transposon mutagenesis. This was prior to modern times where a bacterial genome can be quickly sequenced and annotated. I know that transposons can randomly mutate a genome because I've personally watched it happen.Like Genomicus, I also find it interesting that creationists can brazenly make sweeping conclusions about a vast area of biology with little or no knowledge of the relevant science. At some point, these threads are more about the psychology of creationism than the actual science, since the creationists really aren't all that interested in the science to begin with. How does a belief system remove curiosity and replace it with denial and unfounded confidence? An interesting question, for sure.

Please explain why transposons have nothing to do with the topic. You made the assertion, but never provided the proof.

There are other 3D shapes that can perform the same functions, and other functions that can result in a viable species.From the very start, you are committing the Sharpshooter fallacy, and it destroys the rest of your argument. You never demonstrated that a single one of those genes is required for the development of a heart. You only showed that those are the genes that result in a heart in the mouse. Until you understand the difference between those two things, you will continue to commit the same logical fallacies.