Yesterday we went beyond the basic explanation of the specific complexity argument to infer the intelligent design developed by Dembski, and yesterday we explained his test known as the “construction arbitrage” that he called for to test both development and design...
Yesterday we went beyond the basic explanation of the specific complexity argument to infer the intelligent design developed by Dembski, and yesterday we explained his test known as the “construction arbitrage” that he called for to test both development and design...
Today we would like to know, how can the probabilities of a “constructive arbitrage” be realistically estimated?
“To estimate the probabilities in the construction swing,” says Dembski, “you have to choose mathematical systems that are not so complex that we can’t handle them with the available scientific methods. Darwinists are hiding behind the complexity of biological systems to keep theory from scrutiny.”
To put it more clearly, they don’t want to subject their theory to real mathematical tests, because that would immediately move it from being improbable, to being called “the impossible theory.”
But it won't always work that way, and Dembski was able to actually apply the mathematical test in the experimental field, and that was by moving to the field of proteins, the protein is a molecule made up of several smaller molecules (amino acids), and his Douglas X tests during his work in Cambridge on the sensitivity of proteins to changes, provided an excellent model for the transfer of the mathematical test to the experimental field.
Research by molecular biologist Douglas X confirms that a protein field of approximately 150 amino acids in the famous beta-lactamase enzyme TEM-l-lactamase is unevolveable by Darwinian processes.
The ability of beta-lactamase to give bacteria resistance to antibiotics allowed Axe to apply a technique widely used in evolutionary computing in his research.
Evolutionary computing is a branch of computer engineering that seeks to model Darwinian processes computationally through evolutionary algorithms that solve problems by improving fitness measurements.
We may come across some well-known solutions to these issues and the researcher should exclude them and look for new solutions. To ensure this, we must give positive points to innovation by imposing a fine on the acceptance of old solutions.
Axe hypothesized that 30 amino acids must differ from the original field of 150 amino acids in the enzyme beta-lactamase TEM l lactamase.
Giving X bacteria that have one of these variants in the field the condition that the field folds in a vacuum in a way that gives the bacteria resistance to antibiotics from the penicillin family (the antibiotic concentration is experimentally controlled), this allowed for a precise concentration gradient that gives the bacteria carrying the different variants resistance to this antibiotic at the given concentration.
Axe used natural selection to perform the task of evolution from the TEM l lactamase field to a new field with a constant folding.
Due to the importance of hydrophobic interactions in protein folding, i.e., in its fourth structure, Axe focused heavily on amino acid sequences and on the model of hydrophobic interactions he called "hydropathicsignature" characteristic of each domain. Axe argued that this sequence and this particular structure leads to a very different functional structure, so either they form the same functional fourth structure, or they fail in that way.
In the next step X estimated the water footprint of different amino sequences and the result was that one out of every 10 to 64 sequences formed was a functional field.
Axe defined functional field as the field that performs the function of antibiotic resistance – at least minimally – even if the field is somewhat unsteady folding or obstructive folding.
A non-functional field is therefore a field of no vital importance and therefore can only be selectively distinguished by natural selection as waste that must be deleted.
1 in 10 64 is a very small number in probabilistic language. French mathematician mile Borel assumed the number 1 to 10 50 as the global limit for a probability of which the smaller chance is impossible. The X number is much smaller than Borel's global probability limits!
What does 1 to 10 x 64 mean in light of X's experiments?
That is what we will be doing tomorrow with God’s help.
—
Source: Published on Facebook's "Braheen Center" page
https://www.facebook.com/braheen.org/posts/pfbid02Zj2EoLDFfjQz3ZhvkAceEyszzUGD5smCzAGSbTiAAK1st9Mt2RkwepjDT9KWJabEl