PLOS Genetics on non-random mutations

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@T_aquaticus

It seems that you have the cart in front of the horse. You are finding out how biology functions, and then inventing reasons why it would be consistent with your theory. I would be much more impressed with risky predictions than vague post-dictions.

That’s very unlikely, since @Krauze can’t even come up with the vaguest of post-dictions for the functional difference between start and stop codons, after stating that the stop codon design was an example of the teleology he champions:

@Krauze

Conventional evolutionary biology does not predict optimality. Just consider the panda’s pseudo-thumb or the giraffe’s recurrent laryngeal nerve, where a suboptimal solution was locked in early. Similarly, conventional evolutionary biology would be fine with a “frozen accident” perspective on the genetic code.

Intelligent designers, unlike the blind watchmaker of evolution, can act with foresight and choose the optimal solution. Therefore, my design conjecture leads me to expect that the first life was characterized by what can be termed “good engineering principles”. If the standard genetic code had turned out to be random, no better at minimizing errors than the next code, my conjecture would have a hard time getting off the ground. Furthermore, if further investigations into the error-minimizing properties of the code revealed “scars of history”, features that required a historical explanation, my views would be in trouble.

Krauze doesn’t seem to have much enthusiasm for considering facts that bring that last sentence into focus.