Great! Let’s all keep that in mind.
To be blunt, you call yourself an ID theorist, yet AFAIK you have yet to advance an actual, testable theory or hypothesis. Why?
I agree. Who exactly is stopping that?
And (again bluntly), what’s up with the weird verb “pursue” instead of “test”? “Pursuing” or “exploring” a hypothesis is a sure sign that one is afraid to actually test one’s hypothesis. It usually results in one’s NIH grant application being triaged for being descriptive and/or incremental.
Let’s pursue a design hypothesis. It’s easy!
@agauger has recently modified her own design hypothesis, clearly stated here:
“So unless functional sequences are easy to find (very common), and/or are clustered together (easily reachable from one functional island to another), explaining current protein diversity without design is impossible.”
She’s desperately trying to use Doug Axe’s extrapolation of one in 10^77 for functional proteins in sequence space from a poorly designed, one-off experiment as an anchor.
So in response to my pointing out to her that in hundreds/thousands of trials, desired enzyme activities can be found in libraries of antibodies of only 10^8 clones, to save her hypothesis she has further hypothesized that something about the system being designed and the low enzymatic activity makes that high frequency an artifact.
Her objections makes no sense, but we can work with it anyway!
I, on the other hand, hypothesize that the hit rate for catalytic antibodies is an underestimate, and that the low activity is a product of the constraint imposed by antibody structure.
Do YOU, eminent ID Theorist, see nicely competing, testable hypotheses there?