Except that Miller provides no evidence of this, he merely assumes it:
The extent to which a population can traverse a landscape depends on whether the landscape is smooth or rugged. A smooth landscape contains relatively few peaks with gently rising paths connecting the base of one peak to the summit of another (Figures 1 and 4d). An organism could potentially traverse significant distances along such a landscape, resulting in large evolutionary change. In contrast, a rugged landscape contains a multitude of sharp peaks (Figure 4f). Populations will tend to spend most of their time trapped on a local peak, so evolutionary change will be largely confined to minor modifications to existing traits.
Therefore this:
… is merely you building your own wishful thinking on top of Miller’s unsubstantiated assumption.
You have no more evidence that antibody landscapes are smooth than Miller has that rugged landscapes preclude evolution. This is on top of your and Miller’s simplistic treatment of rugged versus smooth as a binary, rather than a continuous measure (as others have pointed out). Also (as others have pointed out) fitness is multidimensional – meaning that it is perfectly conceivable that fitness may be more rugged against some dimensions and simultaneously less rugged against others.
Given Miller’s lack of evidence and lack of any expertise relevant to evolutionary biology, and EN’s lack of any credibility whatsoever, I’m curious as to why you thought presenting it on this forum was a good idea.
It is apologetics not science Gil. It is “designed” to impress the gullible and/or ignorant – not the skeptical and/or expert (which would be the majority of active members of this forum). And, like most of apologetics, it is very superficial.
I see no more reason to treat “as Miller said” with any more credibility than Ray Comfort’s banana claims, Kent Hovind’s dinosaur claims, or the “according to Dembski” claims you asserted in a recent thread.