This “meant” nothing of the sort! All it means is that DNA and language may share some, yet to be determined, similarities.
That they share “the same mathematical principles” would have to be demonstrated with actual math. But …
That was why this thread was created:
Lacking any such math, all that we can do is follow @CrisprCAS9’s advice, and refuse to respond beyond pointing and laughing.
The number is an average, but it’s not wrong. For some protein they’re more tolerant than the average, for others they’re less, obviously. It’s just that it doesn’t support any of Bill’s conclusions regardless.
Seriously, just ignore Bill. Nobody takes him seriously. He’s a complete idiot and even people ostensibly on his side know it. They just lie about it.
The number of generations to make the change should not matter. It’s how many changes to generate gibberish. Against evidence of greater differences in protein families that according to theory share a common ancestor.
It all depends of the nature of the deleterious mutation. Some could prevent birth and some might cause premature death after someone has already produced offspring. Some might not affect the organism until a second mutation occurred.
I think the point you are trying to make is the deleterious mutations consistently get removed from the population. This is the argument @Rumraket makes but if this is true then it limits how much random variation the population can tolerate.
The theory uses gene duplication as a mechanism for generating new genes. In this case the normally deleterious mutations can accumulate.
Sure Rum maybe you can explain, with supporting evidence given the data you agreed to how the original WNT evolved into very different sequences.
This will be entertaining 
I just love your “just so stories”. The best so far is the spliceosome was generated by gene duplication. The WNT explanation could top it.
No Bill.
It is your conclusion, so the burden is on you and only you to demonstrate how that number supports your conclusion. Your ubiquitous attempts at burden-shifting are both irritating and contemptible.
I think I need to add to my previous summary:
The shear utter vacuity of this statement brings to mind the following aphorism from Abe Lincoln:
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt
But it does. Because not evey change in every spot renders the entire thing completely dyfunctional. Some will, but if less than the entire population suffers them, then they simply get weeded out of the gene pool again, whilst only changes whose impact is too insignificant get to accumulate. So while each individual change down the line initially occurred randomly, the chance that it is retained in the final outcome is not the same as the chance of its occurring at some point, and the final sequence, likewise, will not be gibberish. In order for your argument to work the changes have to occur more quickly than selection can keep up with. If you do not understand how this makes any difference, then I do not see what business you have commenting on any of it.
In the sense that the total variation accumulated over the population’s history is not evenly distributed within the space of possible genomes, sure. But “random” is not the same as “evenly distributed”. Just because selection funnels gene development into survivable regions does not make said development non-random, nor prevents it from occurring or extending arbitrarily far from any given point in that space.
The burden is on those supporting evolutionary theory to explain the data based on known mechanisms.
An independent design is an alternative explanation that explains the large sequence separation between proteins in the same family. It also explains different gene patterns and chromosome counts between species.
Further evidence that “Bill has no logic.”
The discussion was not a generalised discussion on how the data supports evolutionary theory. It was about YOUR claim that:
Therefore, as I have said above, the burden of proof is on you and only you to demonstrate that this number supports your conclusion.
Otherwise, we have no reason to view this claim as anything other than a further piece of ‘Bill’s Vacuous and Ignorant Bullshit™’.
Lacking math and/or logic to support the claim, “an independent design” explains nothing, and is just vacuous drivel.
They have. And you are struggling to raise a coherent objection.
No, it does not. Artificially accomodating for a feature of nature is not enough to explain it. Unless and until a candidate account implies novel testable predictions, it does not qualify to be an explanation of anything. “Goddidit” is a just-so-story, to borrow your own phrasing.
The burden is on the person saying there is a problem with evolutionary theory to explain what that problem is. You can’t do so, because the ‘problem’ is based on mathematics and you are constitutionally incapable of doing even the most basic math.
The design proposal I am proposing is independent origin of most species. This is what the, gene Venn diagrams, chromosome count data and the observed gene family variation is showing.
Reproduction and natural variation (the single point of origin hypothesis) does not explain any of these observed patterns we find in individual species. If methodological naturalism is the rule then reproduction is the best explanation. The problem is the data contradicts this conclusion as there is no reproductive model that explains the differences.
A planned master design explains the origin of the differences. This can be inferred by inductive reasoning derived from observed biological mechanisms.
Ye ye bla bla.
This is a claim you have consistently refused to support. Show your math or show yourself out.
As has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions, the “gene Venn diagrams, chromosome count data and the observed gene family variation” show NOTHING OF THE SORT Bill.
Your claims along these lines completely lack the mathematical and/or logical rigor to make them anything beyond the most vacuous, ludicrous, abysmal and laughable pigeon chess.
I might as well claim “the sky is blue, therefore Zeus exists” – that claim would exhibit the same level of rigor as anything you are claiming.
This rather assumes that Bill has the logical and/or mathematical skills to find his way out. Given the complete lack of skills Bill has demonstrated in those two areas, this would seem to be an unwarranted assumption (even if we gave him a map showing the exits). 
Similarly, the burden is on those proposing intelligent design to explain the data based on their own mechanisms.
Oh, look! Some-one proposing intelligent design, without explaining the data based on their own mechanisms.
They’re shirking their burden. They don’t even have any mechanisms.
How on earth is that supposed to explain anything?
“Why are differences between species the way they are?”
“They just are.”
“Why though?”
“Bro, they just are. God wanted it that way or sthg, idk.”
There is no mechanism to any of it, no rhyme or reason whatsoever, and, most importantly, there is no functional understanding one can harvest from it. There is not a single data point anybody can predict from this “hypothesis” of yours. Therefore there is no means by which it can be scientifically scrutinized. It has no business even being called a hypothesis, because there is no test one can subject it to. It is, in the most damning sense there is, “not even wrong”.
The only thing anybody can do with this is either take it seriously for no reason at all, like you do, or point at it, and the ilk that spouts it, and laugh at the lot of you, like the rest of us do.
Nothing ever came from asking “why”. 
Prove me wrong.
“That’s odd. What’s going on there?” is asking “how come?”, not “why?”.
…Why?
Arguably a bit of a nitpick in this case, though a point in a context where more hinged upon the wording. Clearly what was meant here was not a query for some sense or purpose. We are talking of questions about the operations of nature, of course “why”, when used in this context so colloquially amounts to the likes of “how come”. Still, I’ll take it. Fair play.
Exactly! There’s no answer to that!