Can you disprove this secular argument against evolution?

There is one obvious flaw in your reasoning, even assuming the numbers are correctly calculated.On the one hand, you are trying to count the total number of possible arrangements of molecules.On the other hand, you are trying to calculate the total number of ways this arrangement could be changed. However, the number you actually present is supposed to be the number of possible mutations which could have happened.Mutation is obviously not the only way in which the arrangement of these molecules can be changed. Environmental changes will also affect this, and the number of possible environmental effects is incalculably large. Your 10^43 should be many, many, many orders of magnitude larger.

This observation is false, as I pointed out in the post immediately prior to where you wrote this.

This would only be the case if changes consisted solely in adding new things on top; while everything that was already there remains the same.If you turned off the internet then the company I work for would stop working. Everything that we do, every work process we have in place, every system that we use is reliant on a functional internet.It would be silly from this to conclude that we always had the internet. Our company predates the internet, and there are people old enough to remember that. Since the internet became available, however, various organisational and technological changes have happened in our company; and they have all happened in an internet-capable environment. Therefore we've built a whole structure which is reliant on the internet, and which ceases to function without it.I hope the analogy is clear.

The bigger question is why, every time herebedragons has pointed out the specific flaws in the examples you cite, you ignore it and accuse everyone else of arguing in generalities instead of specifics.

That's the first sentence of the paper. You should have kept reading, as the bulk of it seems to be about an experimental demonstration that splicing may be possible without using any of these proteins. If I understand it right, what the writers were trying to acheive was to understand what sort of simpler structure this spliceosome could have evolved from.This is where your whole probability calculations are going wrong. There isn't only one way to acheive a result; and you rarely need perfection on the first attempt. The processes acheived with such efficiency by complicated protein machinery which is the product of thousands of millions of years of cumulative evolution can be acheived with less efficiency by simpler systems.

Your analogy is flawed. We already know the ticket is a winning ticket - since winning the lottery is supposed to be analogous to a mutation being beneficial. Since most mutations are not beneficial; one that is cannot be a random mutation - it was 'pre-programmed'.What you're actually saying is that if somebody showed you the winning lottery ticket, you would chose to believe that the lottery was rigged, since this is more likely than someone winning it by chance.