Is ID science? Redux

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Giltil

You’re right here, there is a mistake in my formulation. I should have said the following : « V(D)J recombination doesn’t produce high FI for most of the genetic information necessary for implementing the function preexist in the stem cells that develop into B cell ». Thanks for the correction.

Please show your math.

It is not necessary to do the math.
Take this first sequence of letters:
« V(D)J recombination doesn’t produce high FI for most of the genetic information necessary for implementing the function preexist in the stem cells that develop into B cell »

Now take this second sequence of letter:
« V(D)J reco/dejpecbfsjeetrxyd/mbination doesn’t pro/ctifhkeswbudhg/duce high FI/tufdhkerttpbcdgezkmds/for most of the genet/pmhezybcvfdjufpaaxd/ic information necess/apchfsjudftepmbdqa/ary for implementing the function/qgfuotyudgjdepnvxwhj/ preexist in the stem cells that/arvfhjdtupmdfzqo/ develop into B cell ».

Can you see that the functional information in the first sequence is already nearly there in the second so that the transition between the second and the first sequences doesn’t involve a large jump in FI?

Can YOU see that you have omitted the sloppy recombination between the segments, somatic hypermutation, and VH substitution, and many rounds of selection, all mechanisms that increase FI as @gpuccio defines it, in real time?

If you’d like to argue that these mechanisms aren’t important in generating FI, that would be fun. You’ve actually and accidentally offered a perfectly testable hypothesis as your unsupported claim:

@Giltil

« V(D)J recombination doesn’t produce high FI for most of the genetic information necessary for implementing the function preexist in the stem cells that develop into B cell »

See here:

Gil's testable ID hypothesis

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! Hints: in those stem B cells, the gene segments that are recombined are arrayed like this: DEFINE_ME Let’s look at the heavy chain. Note that the cartoon is not accurate, …

Are you interested in learning more, Gil?