Random mutation generating useful sequences is not really discussed frequently in evolutionary circles? You are badly mistaken if you think that. And yes, things which are straightforward in concept always are more complex as applied to particular situations, but this does not help you in any way.
I can’t speak to your “almost sure”-ness, but Art’s statements are pretty clear and I do not see what is left for you to argue about.
I was discussing alternative splicings role in evolution.
There is plenty to argue here as the mechanisms are not completely understood.
Okay, but with which relative activity compared to the natural enzyme?
Right, and that role can be carried out through random mutation and selection. You do not appear to know of any reason why it cannot.
News flash: the mechanisms of biology will never be completely understood. But there is a good deal of difference between an incomplete understanding and no understanding at all.
I don’t really get where you are coming from. You don’t have a positive argument for “design” or manufacture by supernatural beings. Your negative argument rests entirely upon the idea that natural processes cannot do the work – something which can, by the nature of the proposition, never be actually demonstrated. While anyone has the right to think of these things however he wishes, why try to make those positions sound as though they are grounded in science, when they are not? As a free man you may withhold your assent from the sky being blue, fish needing water, the earth being round, or any number of other things. While withholding that assent, in a compelling case, may be absurd, the absurdity of it is greatly compounded when you try to give off the impression that you are driven by reasons which other people ought to find persuasive. Why not just deny evolution outright and have done with it?
All we need is some activity to let variation and selection increase it.
How can someone who worships Doug Axe, who couldn’t be bothered to measure activity, be so hypocritical?
I believe mind or design as a mechanistic explanation for some of the features we are observing in the cell is a scientific claim as much as matter induced space-time curvature is a scientific explanation for black holes. I see objections to this as merely ideological. The mind or design conclusion does not support further research but does work as a comparative tool to keep evolutionary claims in check. Since I have been discussing this I have seen a lot of progress pushing evolutionary theory toward testable claims and away from the blind and unguided nonsense.
Sounds like another opportunity for an experiment.
Yes, you may recall that I proposed that to @Agauger, who was not interested.
Aren’t there already many such experiments that have been published and you ignore, Bill?
It might, if couched in terms which are testable and falsifiable, be, as you say, a scientific “claim.” But there is a good deal of difference between a claim and evidence.
Claims are great for hypothesis formation. If I claim that whales should actually be classified as teleosts rather than as mammals, this is, to use a loose definition, a scientific “claim” because it asserts a state of things which it is within the competency of science to test. But when I do test it, I am liable to be disappointed at how my “claim” fares. Saying that such a claim can be couched in scientific terms says nothing at all about whether it has any actual merit.
But there is no mind or design conclusion. You cannot get there. Your attempts to make a positive argument are all weak analogies rather than evidence bearing on mind or design. Your attempts at a negative argument, even if successful, would only show that our current understanding of evolution is incomplete. Since nobody thinks it is complete, that’d hardly be an earth-mover.
But here again we see your theology holding sway against whatever small scientific impulses you may harbor. Why on earth would the hypothesis of design, even if it met with some sort of confirmation, “not support further research”? When people discovered that point mutations occur in genes, they didn’t say, “well, that doesn’t support further research; we may not ask why they occur, what the chemical processes that cause them to occur are, what factors influence their occurrence, or what the consequences of them may be.” Nobody, in any field of science, EVER says anything like that.
But theology, specifically Christian theology, says exactly that, except whenever it claims the opposite. I could not count the number of times I have seen people write about how God is unknowable, inscrutable, ineffable, et cetera, and then follow that up by explaining what God is like. Inquiry cannot stop at the design hypothesis; in fact, it cannot produce any confirmation of the design hypothesis without going beyond it, by demonstrating that processes do indeed exist which can account for the phenomena design is said to be responsible for.
Do you have citations or other pointers?
Published online 2019 Aug 1. doi: 10.3390/genes10080587
PMCID: PMC6722613
Review Article
Free Access
First published: 01 June 2018
https://doi.org/10.1002/1873-3468.13119
PMID: 31374967
The analogy being weak is your opinion. I just think we disagree here. A mind is capable of complex design and this is the problem we see when we examine the cell. There is really no other known mechanism to explain this observation.
This is just where it is right now. Hopefully in the future we will have room the understand Mind as a mechanism in more detail. Some guys are currently working on this but the supporting data is immature.
Well, if you like. But it IS weak, and even a strong analogy isn’t a compelling argument. To have a scientific theory you’re going to need a good deal more than an argument by analogy that seems compelling to you and useless to those you are hoping to convince. Do bear in mind that biologists have been rejecting this for decades now; you need something else.
But no known mind is capable of having designed the cell, as human minds were late to the party. So you have no actor and no mechanism. Meanwhile, the observation (I assume you mean the observation that cells are complex) is completely consistent with naturally-originating complexity.
But since you need to demonstrate that a mind capable of doing the work exists before you are justified in identifying the work as having been so performed, if “right now” we can say nothing about that mind, you are dead in the water. The supporting data are not so much immature as absent; there simply are no known minds capable of doing the work.
Bear this in mind, too: we do not know of ANY case of a mind that is not of natural biological origin. To get minds before biology is almost certainly impossible; certainly a theory which depends upon pre-biologic minds has a heck of a lot of explaining to do.
Could you describe some of this work? Or give some citations to it?
Yes, that is the “chicken/egg” problem I have raised several times. Bill doesn’t understand why it’s a problem.
Good old one note Bill. The evidence-free disembodied mind and the magic POOF just won’t die. 
Well, he may. But his solution to it is not the sort of thing people like to speak of, when they are claiming the merit of science for their speculations. God goes from “He Whose Name Must Be Proclaimed Everywhere” to “He Whose Name Must Not Be Spoken” when the claim that ID is science is the point under discussion.
And, further to that:
One of the most important things to do in evaluating a legal argument is to tear it down. Nobody who knows what he is doing goes into advocacy without already having subjected his own arguments to the most withering skepticism. It has to be done; otherwise one is unprepared to face the things one will hear in response. And when one’s conclusion is – as it surely ought to be for these ID arguments – that it’s just not going to work, one looks for something else.
But the difference between argument in court and argument “in the wild” is that in the wild, you can walk through the buzzsaw, have nothing left of your position, and just keep talking as though nothing has happened. You can wake up the next morning and start all over again, as people voicing these horrible ID arguments have now done for decades. Litigation is a whole different matter. We have referees and we have finality; so you have to convince someone who is not your adversary that you’re right and the adversary is wrong, and if instead your adversary wins, the argument is all over. If you’re the DI, you can spend the next fifteen years blogging about what a lousy job Judge Jones did, but you can’t win the case after you’ve lost it. It forces one to focus, to drop the losing arguments, and to meet the kinds of evidentiary standards that will carry the day. On the one and only occasion that ID was tested in this fashion, the result was hilariously bad.
so bottom line you can detect design base on the image alone. this is my point- we can detect design when we see such an object like a flying saucer. so can you tell me what is the different from a motor and why you conclude something different when you see a motor?
That’s not the transition to vertebrates, it’s both of the transitions from the common ancestor to extant vertebrates and from the common ancestor to extant cephalochordates.
You are assuming that all the changes took place in the vertebrate lineage and there were none in the cephalochordate lineage - but the known variation among cephalochordates contradicts this assumption, and renders your assertion that the big information jump is associated with the transition to vertebrates unproven. It could be associated with the transition to modern cephalochordates.