Can you disprove this secular argument against evolution?

By your reasoning medical science would be would be falsified, ad-hoc mental constructs as well, as medical science is constantly reinventing itself, retracting old recommendations, discovering new explanations for medical phenomenon, discarding old treatments, etc. You have yet to address why the paper you cited concluded that there has been enough sampling to cover the entire functional landscape. That the actual space that needs to be searched is vastly smaller than your numbers predict.You have also failed to address the fact that you are drawing a target around a specific function and claiming it is impossible to hit that target, when in reality, there are numerous other targets that exist that could be landed on.HBD

Medicine is based on theories, ideas and hypotheses that change as new discoveries are made. You are just playing word games.How about this: Evolution is also a human activity that is concerned with understanding how organisms change and adapt to the environment and varying selection pressures and how these processes likely affected life in the past as well. This makes no sense.And you still haven't addressed the papers you cited.They claim the estimated size of the possible sequence space is much smaller than the number you used. They argue that 20^x is a meaningless overestimation of the potential sequence space. They suggest that a more meaningful number should be 2^x or 2^x/3, which, if correct, makes your whole argument moot. That still misses my point. Your claim is that to go from target A to target B is impossible because the possible space is enormous (a figure opposed by the paper you cite) and the number of trials is 20 orders of magnitude smaller than the proportion of functional sequences. But this proportion of sequences only applies to target A. It does not establish the proportion of function sequences in target B nor does it establish the functional distance from target A to target B. What if target A and target B are only 10 mutations apart? would that be impossible?Also why does it have to go from target A to target B, and not target C or D or E or F ect. You are drawing the bulls-eye around the target B and claiming it is impossible to start at target A and then hit target B. So, miss target B and hit target Z instead.You also ignore the modularity of proteins. A protein can be made up of a series of domains. Rearranging those domains or deleting one domain (for example deleting a membrane association domain could allow the protein to function in the cytoplasm or the nucleus and completely change how it functions) or translocation of a domain from one location to another can change function without having to sift through the entire possible sequences.HBD

Your list of 200 proteins are not all associated into one giant complex. The list you present appears to be all proteins known to have association of any kind to spliceosome activity.I will have to come back later to address some specifics, but some of them are from yeast some from human, so not all of these associate in one complex and at one time. So to represent this list of 200 proteins as a huge complex seems dubious.Do you have a source for this information?HBD

I am calling you out on this again. This is a false or misleading statement. There are not 200 proteins that associate into a massive complex that is a spliceosome. Do you have a source for your information regarding this claim and the 200 associated proteins?HBD