> points out some obvious and undeniable flaws in the current theory or protein 'evolution.' He doesn't. He showcases his lack of knowledge of biochemistry. >

> points out some obvious and undeniable flaws in the current theory or protein 'evolution.' He doesn't. He showcases his lack of knowledge of biochemistry. > that is difficult to get serious researchers to grapple with this issue It is difficult because serious researchers have found out that explaining these issues doesn't lead to understanding for those who refuse to understand these issues. If I would illustrate that "Nonsense sequences are essentially random" is not true or that "Your task is to invent a new gene by mutation" is a thought experiment completely unrelated to the discussion, would you change your mind, or would you ignore it and focus on some other "obvious and undeniable flaw"? At this point, why would any serious biologist bother explaining something to people who feel their very existence depends on that something not being true?