@stcordova, inferring function of evolutionary intermediates by referring to disease-causing mutations is not sound logic or reasoning. Such mutations provide no good evidence for your claims.
Other than your incredulity, can you cite positive evidence that may support your claims?
First off thanks for the correction to the ATP diagram.
You seem to be basically just winging it based on some sort of Hoyle-fallacy.
How is that any worse than what evolutionary biologists do?
They just assert it naturally happens because they can build a phylogenetic diagram. That’s actually a non-sequitur as I showed with the example of KRAB Zinc Finger arrays in another discussion – such scenarios make no mechanical sense. It’s nothing more than assuming what one is trying to prove – and that’s circular reasoning!
At issue is the probability of a fold that allows complexes like this to form, and less obvious, a fold that won’t disrupt previously existing functional complexes!
I’l also note @stcordova’s refusal to discuss the entirely of @Rumraket’s post above.
No, can you?
So, @stcordova, I am expected to dig up positive evidence that supports your unfounded assertions?
I may add it to my list of things to do. But this item will be way, way down the list. Sorry.
In any case, thanks for your response and conversation. Happy New Year!
I accept your concession that your case is based on a mere guess.
No Sal, Nobody actually says “I can build a phylogeny, therefore X naturally happens”.
You have shown no such thing anywhere, you have done merely what you have done here above.
Post a convoluted-looking figure with lots of colors, numbers, and arrows, write down some text that contains abbreviations and technical terms, then conclude with your incredulous commentary:
“it’s outrageous to think…”
“… I guess the chances of this are astronomically remote!”
That is the basic form of every “argument” you make.
That’s all you ever do. Occasionally you will spice it up with a Hoyle-fallacy, but that’s it.
You are a pretender, pretending to have science-sounding arguments. You never really read a scientific article to comprehend it, you don’t try to educate or to really explain anything, all your so-called education is being done simply for apologetic purposes. You read books and take lectures and instructions looking for ways to become better at making science-sounding apologetics. But in reality, you’re just part of a cargo-cult.
I disagree with your characterization, but anyway Happy New Year!
No, it doesn’t. All it shows is that they are precise now, not that they had to be precise when the system first emerged.
Yeah, you do. If you are going to claim that systems can only work with all of those parts then you need evidence to back that claim.
I never mentioned the immune system. However, since you mention it, please show how mutations to the V, D, and J variable regions cause “disaster”.
It isn’t obvious at all why deleterious mutations would indicate that all mutations are deleterious, nor can it be the basis for a claim that no beneficial mutations can occur. If you want to claim that there are no possible intermediates then you need to prove it.
Where have I done that? All I have said is that we don’t know what those systems looked like in the past. You are making the claims about what they looked like, so you need to provide the evidence.
For people in the past, it made no sense that the Sun remained still and the Earth moved about it. “It doesn’t make sense” is not a valid argument.
Tangentially, phylogenetic signal is not assumed. It is measured. If proteins did evolve then they should fit into a phylogenetic tree. Observing a phylogenetic signal is evidence for evolution.
Heh. That’s pretty funny coming from a guy who has spent the past 20 years trying to prove his assumed “Intelligent Designer”. 
Thanks.
BTW, the ASCB Annual Meeting was in your backyard this year, @stcordova. I didn’t see your name on the attendee list, but was nevertheless wondering if you, or any of the ID community, attended this meeting. There was a bounty of stuff that fits very well into the “Intelligent Design 3.0” theme that seems to be all the rage at the Discovery Institute. Any thoughts or comments?
I totally wasn’t aware of that meeting nor the organization. Thanks for pointing it out.
The last secular conference I attended was the ENCODE 2015 conference. My work was represented at a poster session at the 2019 Experimental Biology conference in Orlando.
any of the ID community, attended this meeting.
I’m not aware of any. There are lots of IDists whose identities are not revealed who work at the NIH. Dr. Sanford would not have spoken there in 2018 if that weren’t the case… I don’t know any who are part of ASCB. The ones I know are involved in other specialties, especially in chemistry.
Any thoughts or comments.
I should look into it. I’m part of two small computational/structural biology teams. We’re at the point we can at least contribute to some Experimental Biology and Computational Biology type posters on specialized proteins at their conferences. The ones of interest are Topoisomerase II enzymes since one team has lots of experimental specialty in that, but the computational research can be done by lots of people since the Protein Data Bank has x-ray crystallography and structural data that can be analyzed with some of the tools available to us.
Dr. Sanford and I did talk about some work in cell signalling till we were blown away by already well established outfits like Cell Signalling, Inc. who run PhosphoSitePlus:
https://www.phosphosite.org/staticAboutPhosphosite
I didn’t see your name on the attendee list
You’re right to point that out. Maybe some day!
Maybe John will be attending this meeting, also in your back yard. There is almost certain to be lots of stuff related to signaling (and development, and evolution, and [gasp] even RNA).
Do you plan to be at PB20?
I’ll look into that too. Thanks.
Undecided. Close to my kids, but DC in July? Ugh…
Maybe a simpler question will help.
I presume you are familiar with this particular finding of the Richard Lenski LTEE:
Would this be considered an example of a “de novo” functional sequence according to ID?
I personally consider it a de novo sequence, but many if not all my ID colleagues might not. I don’t exactly follow lock step with them on everything, and this one example.
Another example is Specfied Complexity. I think the concept should be dropped, personally.
Also, I don’t think we should promote ID as science. And we should stop using the 2nd law of thermodyanmics as an argument for ID.
I’m on the same page with them on other issues, however.
That one always confused me. First, human designers can’t violate the 2LoT, so if the 2LoT prevents evolution from producing complex adaptation then it would also prevent human designers from doing the same. Heck, they should have been arguing that refrigerators shouldn’t work. Of course, the law allows entropy to decrease if work is added to the system which some ID supporters never seemed to understand.
I’d say that the stop codon is not that important, given the ability to tolerate nonsense suppressor tRNAs.