DI's response to Art Hunt

I understand that. The argument is not that artificial selection explains why it arose. It’s that it probably performed a real function prior to its appearance and devolved, as opposed to Hunt’s highly improbable scenario of serendipitous mixing and matching of various sequences for no reason.

Doubtful. I’ll try to help.

Its authorS. And my argument is that T-urf13 invalidates any conception of design when it comes to multi subunit irreducibly complex systems. The authors most definitely do not agree.

The authors of the ENV piece are most certainly wrong.

The connection between T-urf13 and the calcium channel is illusory. This is something the authors pulled basically from out of thin air. I will go into detail in another post.

T-urf13 is not under nuclear regulation. As for function, the authors of the ENV piece make an argument that actually casts into non-existence a sizable number of plant species. Again, more detail will come in a later post.

T-urf13 is not designed, and it is not a broken protein. This claim is beyond absurd.

Patience. The authors of the ENV piece have given me a veritable cornucopia of error, misstatement, and comic relief. I do have a day job, and cannot jump right into the fray.

I really do not care. You ID people have to be tired of being taken to the woodshed, over and over and over. It is happening again.

T-urf13 is a clear “before and after scenario”. There is no mistaking this.

You want dishonesty? Try reflecting on the way the authors discussed Pring et al.

As with the other points, I will elaborate later.

5 Likes

This “signal peptide” is not identified as such by the much more reliable SignalP tool. It’s identification as such in T-urf13 is almost certainly wrong.

2 Likes

Regardless of its relation to other proteins, a design view necessitates that most of the functional features here did not arise de novo. That is vastly improbable, probably much lower than 10^-60 due to the fact this is not a bacterial population. One would have thought you would jump at the chance to demonstrate exaptation from pre-existing features.

Why would that be? Do designers not create things with new features “de novo”? Like, say, the guy who had the idea of adding a luggage rack on top of a car?

1 Like

Yet it happened, essentially in real time, by random recombination processes that are well-known in plant mitochondria.

This tells us that the arguments used to derive the 10^-60 figure are wrong. That is one the the main points. When “the math” doesn’t agree with reality, the appropriate thing to do is revisit “the math”, not consign reality to the trash bin.

6 Likes

This is a caricature of the ID position. Nobody is claiming God created this thing directly. The idea is this is a previously functional protein that broke and no longer performs its intended function, not a series of imagined mutations from vastly disparate functions just because of sequence identity.

Are you claiming this adaptation occurred after the maize genome was sequenced? Just to be clear.

This is your argument. You claimed tURF-13 constituted 3 "CCC"s. By definition a CCC is a cluster of mutations having an empirical probability of 10^-20. Is that not what you meant?

Well, I thought ID was a scientific hypothesis and had nothing to do with any gods. But that aside, you do not seem in agreement with Behe’s position, which is that “the designer” does create new functions by intervening at points in the evolutionary process Can you provide some of the evidence that you believe contradicts Behe’s position, and why you think he is wrong?

2 Likes

Seriously? You are aware that the cmsT corn has a pedigree, aren’t you? I cannot believe you are claiming what you seem to be, it is so absurd.

Actually, on ENV, there was significant revision of this definition of a CCC, and I plan on revising my own argument here on PS based on what the ENV authors proposed recently. Patience.

2 Likes

I’m YEC. Obviously I don’t believe God intervened as other theistic and old earth views require. In that respect I’m closer to you than Behe. But at least he doesn’t speculate about it. He lets his critics do that.

There’s an official ID position now? Last I heard there were close to a dozen, from literal Genesis to front loading to Behe’s occasional tinkerer to Meyer’s Cambrian Designer, etc. How did you determine which was the “correct” ID position?

How did you determine a previous function was “intended”? Intended by who or what? Exapation or the modification of existing features into new roles is a well known evolutionary mechanism.

3 Likes

That is not the definition. CCC stands for “chloroquine complexity cluster”, which is defined as any adaptive trait requiring the same number of mutations as chloroquine resistance in the malaria parasite (Why Behe chose this over any of the other billions of other genetic traits he could have chosen is one of the enduring mysteries of ID.)

The point being, the definition does depend on any particular odds of the trait arising. The 10^-20 figure was just Behe’s own miscalculated attempt to quantify how often a trait of such complexity would be expected to have evolved.

It seems you need to brush up a bit on your understanding of ID theory.

2 Likes

It is a simple question. I have no idea what you think I am claiming.

I didn’t ask about your beliefs. I asked for the evidence that convinces you Behe is wrong.

1 Like

Give me a break. You were, and maybe still are, going to assert that we have no way of knowing the sequence of the mitochondrial genomes of breeding lines of corn from the 40’s, 50’s, and later years. That is patently absurd, and I trust that you will disabuse yourself of this idea.

3 Likes

I’m not sure this sort of thing is amenable to evidence. We are getting into theology here. I think the idea of God intervening at various points in natural history is ludicrous, not to mention it would require a creative interpretation of Genesis, especially the part where God finished creation and declared it very good and rested.

It’s not absurd if it’s true, Professor Hunt.

Prove your point. Show your work.

Otherwise, everyone else here will understand that you are just making stuff up because you don’t like the truth of the matter.

2 Likes

If you are claiming that evolution created tURF-13 de novo and very rapidly, then we have even less reason to be confident current sequences are accurate representations of what they were decades ago, don’t we? After all, anything could happen. Evolution is pretty much magic.