I think it works fine if you are claiming evolution works for simple adaptions only.
How do you decide the line separating simple from non simple?
1 Like
ID supporter: Show me an example of a mutation producing a change in function that is beneficial to the organism.
Scientist: Here is one.
ID supporter: That doesn’t prove anything.
2 Likes
And the goal posts go sweeping by. The discussion was about de novo sequences. Behe’s book is about adaptions just like the one you cited.
Like the de nove sequence you were shown just this morning and ran from.
And Bill’s backside goes sweeping by. 
No, Behe’s book is about adaptations that break genes. New functions are something else. Pay attention.
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?
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