The Importance of Potentially Disconfirming Evidence

You are wrong - what we see in the Cytochrome C differences IS exactly what the ToE would predict. The difference between any two-species - at least in a highly-conserved molecule like cytochrome-C - is dependant to the time since the most recent common ancestor.
Thus all life forms which share the same most-recent-common-ancestor with a eukaryotic bacterium will have (approximately) the same amount of difference between their cytochrome-C and the bacterium's.On the other hand, the differences between species with a more recent common ancestor should be smaller - as they are.Although there are enough chance influences that we cannot expect the differences to exactly match - we are relying on neutral drift to fix the changes in the various populations - the results still strongly support evolutionSee this page for more detail:
Coming soon page | Register your own domain at GKG.NET

It isn't followed by the IDists either. The only attempt I know of to apply it to a real biological problem was Dembski's go at a bacterial flagellum. And he made a right mess of that.As I said fairly recently here:Nobody uses the formal version of the EF for serious problems because it is too impractical. You've got to be certain you've accounted for EVERY posssible explanation AND show that the probability of each of them is below your probability bound.