Stephen C. Meyer | The Ben Shapiro Show Sunday

You mean like the beta-lactamase that emerged in randomly constructed antibodies?

https://febs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/febs.14012

How long is the sequence that is randomized?

100+ amino acids. Here are the sequence comparisons:

So about 25% of the total enzyme?

No comment on de novo sequence having function?

Let’s understand what really is going on here and not play word games.

A thousand irony meters just exploded in unison.

What happened is that a random mixture of DNA segments created during VDJ recombination produced enzyme function. That’s what happened. According to you, function is so hard to find that a random process should not find it, and yet it did. Now you are searching for excuses and word games to avoid this obvious conclusion.

1 Like

How do we know that this is “adaptive by accident,” and not some pre-engineered feature placed permanently within the underlying sequence coding? That would be the defining question. It could be either, or both, or neither. Answering the question of how it now functions is not the same as explaining how the new function arose… but it may be close, granted.

You have stumbled onto the universal defense.

IDer: Natural processes can’t create new information.

Evolutionist: Here’s new information created by natural processes.

IDer: How do you know that was a natural process and not divine intervention?

3 Likes

What @John_Harshman said.

This shows how hollow the ID challenges really are. Even when those challenges are met, there is always an out that saves ID. Once again, Lucy pulls the football away.

When will you be presenting your positive evidence for ID and not just more lame word games?

1 Like

We don’t know, just like we don’t know gravity isn’t caused by the invisible gravity pixies pushing on things. Since we have zero positive evidence for invisible gravity pixies or invisible genome pre-engineering elves we don’t consider them in our scientific explanations.

1 Like

You guys are so taken with yourselves. It’s an honest question, in a deck that can’t be definitively stacked either way. If an AI robot suddenly develops a new positive function, what will you attribute that to? It’s been programmed with that as a potential outcome, but not deterministically so.

You were given an honest answer. In science we don’t consider as explanations fantastic claims for which there is zero evidence. That’s the realm of science fiction.

1 Like

Of course it can. We see the clear result of known processes, and you substitute a purely hypothetical and uselessly vague process for which there is no evidence of existence, and you call that an equal footing?

Dunno. Has it been given a mechanism for self-programming? Is there evidence for that mechanism? Does the AI robot also get random mutations?

1 Like

If it’s possible for genomes to be stacked in a way that naturally occurring mutations will produce new protein functions then ID supporters should not be asking for examples of naturally occurring mutations producing new protein functions. Even Behe thinks ID can be falsified by mutations that happen in real time:

1 Like

T the longer the sequence the larger the number of ways to arrange the sequence.

Evolution does not get any credit for evolving partial enzymes if it is claiming that it can explain the diversity of life.

If you are conceding that it cannot then we have common ground.

I will take this as a tacit admission that random processes can produce function.

Yes we have common ground here :slight_smile:

2 posts were split to a new topic: Proof vs. Demonstration