From Newsgroup: talk.origins

Generative biology seems to be the next new field in molecular biology.
It seems to be common to see ads for post docs and research positions
open for Generative biology positions. It is the actual intelligent
design science, and not what we observe to have happened in nature.
These molecular biologists are using AI trained on huge datasets to not
only predict protein structure and function, but they can design
proteins that can do specific things like bind specific molecules.

In the case of binding ligands you have de novo design by AI while in
nature your antibodies start out with a specific antibody sequence and
put in arbitrary changes in the sequence of the variable regions, and
the mutated sequences that bind the antigens are selected, amplified and further mutated to select for improve binding. For Generative biology
AI designs the protein sequence that it predicts will do the job, and
the researchers create that protein sequence.

This seems to be another aspect of real science that the ID perps are
missing out on. It should be easy for them to determine the difference between actual intelligent design and biological evolution.

The ID perps will need to explain why their designer needed to wait
thousands of generations for Behe's 2 or 3 neutral mutations to occur in
a single gene lineage in order to evolve a new function when researchers
are beginning to design the new protein with the new function, make the
gene that will produce that protein product and get the gene to work in
a bacteria and or eukaryotic animal cell.

Why did it take over 2 billion years to evolve all the genes that were
needed to fuel the Cambrian explosion where the existing gene families diversified and evolved to do what they do?

Ron Okimoto

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2