The problem is that you don’t have four straight flushes.
The problem is that the sequences you are looking at were not produced by a random process. They evolved.
Axe only looked at one singular enzymatic reaction. You can’t say that a protein has no function because it fails to react with B-lactam antibiotics. Using Axe’s criteria, there are no functional proteins in the human genome.
I can give you 40 million mutations as examples of mutation that have caused speciation. Those are the mutations that separate the human and chimp genomes.
And that is due to mutations that separate the two species.
What do you think causes differences in gene expression between humans and chimps?
Are you forgetting there are 4 suits? 
You are begging the question.
Mutations need not equate to speciation…
You’re begging the question here. If you argue to show common descent and evolution is true you cannot assume your conclusion.
But they do equate to speciation. The reason that species are incapable of interbreeding is the DNA differences between them.
Again, you are begging the question also known as circular reasoning. Evolution is true, eyes evolved many times so its easy to evolve eyes. You assumed your conclusion.
Common ancestry and evolution are already established by other evidence, such as the nested hierarchy.
You’re not supporting your claim directly but I understand this is the best you have.
The nested hierarchy is direct evidence.
Not of the mechanism you are claiming can do the job. The theory has you reasoning in circles. If your hypothesis is, random genetic change (and selection) can create an eye you have to directly test that specific claim. The nested hierarchy is not evidence of random change creating an eye. It is evidence that living organisms have common features.
When I asked for a quantitive answer you were not able to provide one and I understand but at the end of the day your claim is not tested.
The pattern of conserved sequences in exons is direct evidence for natural selection. The bias towards transition mutations and CpG mutations is direct evidence of mutations. The nested hierarchy is evidence for these mechanisms changing DNA within lineages that share a common ancestor through vertical inheritance. The evidence is all there. There is nothing circular about it.
Phylogenetics does give quantitative answers. Read more here:
There is also the quantified bias of differences between genomes that evidences the mechanism of mutations:
https://biologos.org/blogs/guest/testing-common-ancestry-its-all-about-the-mutations
We can also quantify Ka/Ks ratios in genes, if you want.
Where have you empirically tested directly for ancestry. Beyond the statement “this is evidence of”. Until you do that you are making unsupported assumptions and reasoning in a circle.
If there is evidence for A
plus evidence for B
plus evidence for C
That does not mean A, B, or C caused E. The cause of E must be established on its own directly.
Many creationists abuse principles of probability to make things sound impossible.
Their approach would make the average man think there is ZERO danger from lightning… which is a fallacious form of reasoning.
If there was a murder case that depended up in knowing if the defendant was related to the deceased… are you saying that SCI tech’s are doing everything wrong when they assess the degrees of difference in the genetics of the two people?
Here:
You have not directly tested your claim for ancestry that is fine. The real issue is that your mechanism has never been demonstrated to generate the FI required for the transitions represented in the nested hierarchy.
So you are saying that I personally have to repeat every experiment done in the last 150 years?
No you don’t. Look at the literature in pub med and see if there is an experiment and confirmation of your specific claims. In this case you’re claiming the Darwinian mechanism or some close alternatives can create an eye.
The issue is there is no experimental data that can support your claim that is why the design argument is being discussed.
Thats also why many people believe that Behe’s irreducible complexity claim made 23 years ago is still viable.
The talkorigins page has the references you need, such as this one:
That would be a God of the Gaps argument. It is strange that you need all of this evidence for evolution, but no such evidence for ID.