Biological Information and Intelligent Design: evolving new protein folds

[Casper_Hesp]

@Cornelius_Hunter

Of course design explains the “overarching pattern.”

Hi Cornelius, it could be useful for you to check out the thread we had up here a while ago. It was about a comparison of the explanatory power of mere “similarity” with that of “shared history” (i.e., common descent) when analyzing gene sequences. This comparison clearly showed that shared history has more predictive power. Here’s a link to that thread:

Phylogeny vs Similarity and Function

At a genetic level we see a great deal of similarity between organisms. This similarity is a fundamental feature of life, that has to be explained by any theory. Evolution explains that this similarity as largely caused by shared history, by way of common descent. We see function often aligning in sensible ways on phylogenetic trees of sequences and organisms. Of course, this is not perfect, because we also know that life changes over time. As the YEC Walter ReMine accurately points out in The …

As soon as you start elaborating on your alternative to common descent, things become more interesting:

@Cornelius_Hunter

The existence of complex structures and processes, whose origin is unexplained by natural processes, which appear abruptly in the strata, and their appearance across widely disparate taxa, and differences in neighboring species which also are unexplained by natural processes, all make perfect sense on design.

So, according to you, all things that are not easy to make sense of in terms of natural processes are supportive of design? This is an argument from scientific ignorance and God-of-the-Gaps thinking… I can’t see why you would find that kind of approach attractive.