It's the FAITH STATEMENT that 'everything came about by some form of evolutionary process' that blinds Darwinists to the possibility of life being created in 'one fell swoop'.
There is a very huge difference between a protein having evolved and having it "created in 'one fell swoop'." For one thing, no modern protein ever gets "created in 'one fell swoop'", but rather it is produced by natural biological processes. Evolution examines what life clearly does as we have directly observed
over multiple generations. We have
observed organisms producing modern proteins, whereas we have never seen modern proteins being "created in 'one fell swoop'". Evolution deals with what actually happens, whereas your model of a modern protein being "created in 'one fell swoop'" simply does not happen.
Furthermore, the probability calculations for the two models are completely different and produce completely different results. The methods of selection are called "single-step selection" and "cumulative selection" and are presented and discussed in Richard Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker
. In the third chapter he presents his WEASEL program that tests cumulative selection. While he does not present the code (it was in BASIC), I wrote my own example based on his description -- others have described mine as the most faithful implementation of what Dawkins described -- which I called MONKEY; see my web page, MONKEY
Your "created in 'one fell swoop'" model uses single-step selection
in which you try to get the result you want in one single step and when that fails you start over completely from scratch. The probability of this succeeding is so small that if you made a million trials per second, it would take about 195 trillion years to have one chance in a million of succeeding. The age of the universe is only about 13 billion years, so it would take about 10,000 times the age of the universe for single-step selection to have one chance in a million of working. Truly abysmal. The only way for single-step selection to work would be supernatural intervention.
But that is not how life works and evolution describes and depends on how life actually works. Evolution uses cumulative selection
, in which several copies (AKA "offspring") are generated which are very much like, though slightly different from, their parents. Then the best of those copies are used to generate the next generation of copies. Instead of always starting from scratch, each generation uses its parents as the new starting point. Depending on various factors, this method succeeds within minutes and even seconds.
I performed a mathematical analysis of the two processes, which my MONKEY page links to (MONKEY PROBABILITIES (MPROBS):
). With cumulative selection, the only way for it to fail is for each and every copy of each and every generation to fail to advance towards the goal. It turns out that the probability of failure with cumulative selection becomes extremely low, such that success becomes virtually inevitable.
Of course, if you had bothered to review the responses to BoredomSetsIn's OP, then you would have already learned all that. Instead, you ignored the content of the thread and ended up making the same stupid mistakes that BoredomSetsIn had made. While it is important to be able to learn from our own mistakes, it is far more important to learn from other people's
mistakes. You missed your chance.