AiG and the immune system

[Kotter]

I found this on AiG's site. They also seem to have jumped on the irreducibly complex bandwagon!
Any thoughts?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v18/i2/less.asp

[electrolyte]

Some apologists for the evolutionary philosophy have claimed this as an example of information arising from a random process, but it is irrelevant to biological evolution.AiG simply says it's irrelevant to biological evolution. If AiG claims that "information cannot arise from a random process" and thereby concludes that evolution is impossible, while simultaneously admitting that information can arise from a random process because they try to qualify it as not applying to evolution, it just makes it easier for us to show that AiG is being blatantly dishonest.

As I see it, the above applies logically, regardless of any issues regarding the meaning or application of the term "random."

"X cannot lead to Y. In a case such that X actually does lead to Y, we consider said case irrelevant to any situation where falsification of the original claim destroys our overall point."
This is of course the classic "I base my facts on my conclusions instead of vice versa" approach. And they call us apologists... :rolleyes:

Let them leap onto the IC bandwagon. That way we can save time and effort by using the same explanations we've already used for Behe, Dembski, and DI.

So there, Kotter; them's the thoughts of somebody not incredibly familiar with the workings of the immune system.

[Roland98]

Because the system has to be complete to contribute to fitness, a step-wise process of small lucky mutations selected by natural selection, per Dawkins, cannot work.

Wonder if Dr. Batten knows how B and T cells mature--via mutations and natural selection. Irony.

[Doppelganger]

Wonder if Dr. Batten knows how B and T cells mature--via mutations and natural selection. Irony.

Quit being so arrogant and read some more about pleomorphism.

[RBH]

Quit being so arrogant and read some more about pleomorphism.I'm pretty sure Dr. Roland98 knows a dab about it.

RBH

[Angrillori]

"X cannot lead to Y. In a case such that X actually does lead to Y, we consider said case irrelevant to any situation where falsification of the original claim destroys our overall point."

Reminds me of a Simpsons' quote. (Which I'll attempt to recreate in butchered form, from memory, here.)

Atty Hutz: Your honor, I object!
Judge: On what grounds?
Atty Hutz: On the grounds that that evidence completely destroys my case!

[electrolyte]

Reminds me of a Simpsons' quote.

Or,
Fletcher: Your honor, I object!
Judge: Why?
Fletcher: Because it's devastating to my case!
Judge: Overruled.
Fletcher: Good call!