Gee, if only there was a process which provided some sort of feedback on how well each arranged sequence worked and rewarded those which work better by having their possessors reproduce more. Some sort of natural process providing feedback selection. I wonder what it could be called?
This is what you said:
“The idea that one eye came from a process that has a random front end is unbelievable yet you claim multiple eye types came from this process.”
That is an argument from incredulity.
The sequences came from their ancestors, plus mutations that occurred through that lineage. Each generation does not get a completely randomized genome as you are suggesting.
I am not suggesting it is randomized. You are now reverting to a straw-man. No one has ever demonstrated that a trial and error process can generate enough FI to build an eye once let alone multiple times.
Unbelievable because we are observing a sequence. There is a reason for my use of unbelievable.
Yes. It’s called ignorance based personal incredulity. Willful ignorance in this case.
You have no way of measuring FI because that would require complete knowledge of every possible sequence with a specific function.
Observing a sequence is not unbelievable.
No it does not and I have explained this to you multiple times 
All measurements are estimates.
True but claiming one evolved by a trial and error process multiple times that builds an eye is a stretch
Only to a muddle-headed Creationist who has successfully dodged every last scientific explanation and every last bit of scientific evidence he’s been shown for years. 
Do you believe in every claim made by scientists?
I accept the ones where I’ve personally seen and/or read about huge amounts of consilient positive evidence for. Do you automatically reject all science when it contradicts your preconceived religious beliefs?
It does require knowledge of every sequence that would produce a specific function as I have explained multiple times. No one has that knowledge, so FI can’t be estimated or computed.
That’s an argument from personal incredulity.
No. My problem with this theory is based on the observation that DNA and proteins are sequence dependent. I discovered this 4 years ago. Prior to that I had no reason to doubt the theory.
Your claimed problem is that you don’t think there are very many sequences that have function, but you haven’t been able to demonstrate this claim. You “problem” is nothing more than an unproven belief.
The every sequence that produces a function canard ignores the interdependent nature of proteins. PRPF8 once it arrives the next protein needs to bind to it.
You need to show that this is true for the first PRPF8 protein that emerged in eukaryotes.
No, it’s based on mathematical falsification. Either you don’t understand this problem or you are choosing to ignore it.
You can have trillions of sequences with function yet this does not help you with the mathematical problem a long sequence presents.
What about the 170 interdependent proteins that need to bind with PRPF8 to make a functional protein. The any sequence will do canard does not address real biology.
Then lets see the math.
I’m not seeing any math. All I see are a lot of bare assertions.
You need to show that this was true for the very first PRPF8 protein that emerged in eukaryotes. All you have is a bare assertion that the way the protein functions now is the same as it functioned in the past. Evolving new proteins that interact with already existent PRPF8 wouldn’t be a problem.
Not at all, if you can be bothered to look at the evidence instead of rhetoric.
If you were to ask me, I would say new features evolve easily because God has guided the shape of a creature’s nature and behavior using evolutionary principles.
Isn’t that the answer you would want to hear?