Does ID have Hypotheses?

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@colewd

@Mercer

In what way do catalytic antibodies not constitute finding the “relevant sort of properties” “among more or less random sequences”?

This is your argument claiming Axe should have included the research around catalytic antibodies.

So why aren’t you answering my question?

@colewd

His experiment was with e coli bacteria and that the sequence producing beta lactamase effective enough to resist a given concentration of penicillin…

There’s one problem with his paper. He didn’t test activity. Why do you think he didn’t bother?

@colewd

was rare in sequence space or 10^77 probability of finding it with a random search.

No, that was an extrapolation, not data.

Does real-life evolution need “enough to resist a given concentration of penicillin” or much less activity than that?

@colewd

The sequence existed in bacteria.

False. Axe cheated by starting with a temperature-sensitive mutant enzyme to skew the results. Why did he do that?

@colewd

The question is what is the origin of this sequence.

The mutant enzyme sequence came from mutagenesis and selection. Axe didn’t use the wild-type enzyme. Why not?

@colewd

How does the study of catalytic antibodies help with this question?

Axe explained how very clearly.

@colewd

What is the origin of the system that produces catalytic antibodies?

The system that produces the catalytic part is "more or less random sequences.” Since Axe wrote that, why did he ignore all of those papers?

@colewd

@Art is the most familiar with this experiment maybe he could weigh in. He used a different argument approach which stated that Axe’s results were in an expected range.

No, Art said basically the same thing that I am saying. The problem is that you don’t understand any of the three of us.