Continuing the discussion from Is ID science? Redux:
Gil, misrepresenting (hopefully not deliberately) his assumption as a fact, has provided a clear ID hypothesis in what appears to be the process of scrambling to avoid testing @gpuccio’s FI hypothesis:
No, I cannot, because the binding specificity of three-dimensional antibodies is a combinatorial function. You are now ignoring somatic hypermutation. You are also ignoring the sloppy joining of segments by recombination, which generates new FI in real time.
Again, @gpuccio’s hypothesis (misrepresented as a fact) is that there is an FI threshold that cannot be generated without design. This hypothesis makes testable predictions that @Giltil and @gpuccio seem to be uninterested in testing.
Your hypothesis is most clearly stated as:
Let’s test it together!
- in those stem B cells, the gene segments that are recombined are arrayed like this:
Let’s look at the heavy chain. Note that the cartoon is not accurate, as there are hundreds of V segments that can be recombined. Again, @Giltil’s very testable hypothesis is that most of the information is already there.
- The test can be done using genetic engineering of mice, in which we can insert, delete, or substitute pieces of DNA using embryonic stem cells.