Dembski Responds to Rosenhouse

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Marty

Ya know, you guys might actually have to read the book to understand it.

Don’t you think that you might actually have to learn some biology to understand it, instead of reading books full of falsehoods written to support a particularly bad theology?

@Marty

But watch out, you might find some things in the book interesting: A German Scientist Speaks Out about Intelligent Design - YouTube

You appear to have confused a book with a video.

@Marty

@T_aquaticus

B-cells run the math for us. Out of a few billion random sequences we get tons of protein-protein binding sites. This demonstrates that these binding sites can’t be nearly as rare as Behe claims.

This looks good until you realize antibodies can bind to any spot on an antigen that happens to have a sequence that can act as the complement.

Can they bind to “spots” on an antigen that have the same shape as host molecules?

@Marty

For a protein complex, you need the complement at a “right” location so that the resulting quaternary structure has meaningful catalytic activity.

Really? Looks like the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy raising its ugly head.

1. Why quaternary and not tertiary or secondary?
2. Do all protein complexes have catalytic activity, much less “meaningful” catalytic activity?
3. Please apply your hypothesis to a muscle myosin and its catalysis of ATP → ADP + Pi. What binding is required?

@Marty

The requirements for protein complexes are many orders of magnitude more stringent than B cells.

You’re comparing two different things. Protein complexes are, well, proteins, and B cells are much, much more than proteins.

And how many orders of magnitude, exactly? To me as an actual biologist, it appears that you’re just making this up as you go.