What is Universal Common Descent?

[DennisVenema]

@Cornelius_Hunter

Bill states: I think that it is exceeding unlikely that a stochastic process is capable of generating even one protein that must bind with a pre existing protein. The sequence space is too large and specific sequences must be found so protein A will successfully bind with protein B
Dennis replies: Vertebrates do this day in and day out, without any difficulty - they use a stochastic, randomized process to make antibodies, which are proteins that bind with high affinity to a preexisting protein or other antigen. The vastness of sequence space does not impede this process in any way.

That is a non sequiter and an unfortunate misrepresentation of the science which will fool many people. The fact that the immune system routinely solves difficult binding problems is irrelevant to Bill’s point. Unfortunately evolutionists have a long history of making such inappropriate claims, where the capabilities of organisms is somehow cast as a solution to, or type of, evolution. Another prevalent example of this these days is epigenetics, and the casting of it as a new type of evolution, which it isn’t.

The fact that the immune system routinely solves difficult binding problems is very germane to Bill’s point - he’s claiming that randomized processes cannot produce even one new protein-protein binding event (!). He’s claiming the problem is the vastness of sequence space. This is the exact same issue facing the production of antibodies by the immune system, and yet there is no problem at all in producing high affinity antibodies routinely. Merely claiming this observation is not relevant is not an argument.

Bill, if you’re interested in an example of evolution producing a new protein-protein binding event, I’ve written up an example here:

http://biologos.org/blogs/dennis-venema-letters-to-the-duchess/the-evolutionary-origins-of-irreducible-complexity-part-4