A Ubiquitin Response to Gpuccio


(Bill Cole) #1

Here is a recent one.


Theological Premises in Design Arguments?
#2

Perhaps you could start a new thread and list the topics within that paper you would like to discuss.


(Bill Cole) #3

I am sure how much interest it will attract at this point. There needs to be some ground work on his methods of inferring design or his work will not be well understood. Let me think about it.


(Dan Eastwood) #4

@AlanFox might be a good person to bring in on this. I saw that he authored this post at TSZ. :slight_smile:


(Alan Fox) #5

Well, it was mainly to respond to Dr (what is it with medics?) Puccio bemoaning the fact he was getting no response from the sane side of the fence. Uncommon Descent tends to silence critical comments and commenters.

The basic argument is no different from Behe’s original mousetrap or Paley’s watch. Wow, how complex? Explain that Darwinists!


(S. Joshua Swamidass) #6

6 posts were split to a new topic: What is Up With Physicians?


(Bill Cole) #7

His argument is different then both of these arguments. He is measuring functional information as calculated by sequence preservation over deep time. You posted his argument you should make sure you understand it as I know you are certainly capable.


(Alan Fox) #9

You can only measure something you can define. Tell me exactly what gpuccio is measuring. Then I’ll explain why it’s cargo cult science. :slight_smile:


(Bill Cole) #14

He is measuring functional information. If you follow your own blog you know that this is defined scientifically by Szostak and Hazen and endorsed by Joe Felsenstein.


(Alan Fox) #15

I know precisely what Hazen and Szostak measure.

What data does gpuccio use? How does he manipulate that data?


(S. Joshua Swamidass) #16

So let the dr. gpuccio that he is being engaged here. Let him come make his case.


(Alan Fox) #17

I’m persona non grata at Uncommon Descent but Bill Cole posts there.


(Bill Cole) #18

It was all explained on the post you provided at TSZ. He looks at long sequences that are preserved over time and calculates functional information against the preserved sequences using Szostak’s method for estimating functional information

What do you mean manipulate the data?


(Alan Fox) #19

[quote=“colewd, post:18, topic:1608”]

What data does gpuccio use?

It was all explained on the post you provided at TSZ. He looks at long sequences that are preserved over time and calculates functional information against the preserved sequences using Szostak’s method for estimating functional information

You mean he just takes stock DNA sequences publicly available. And chooses them somehow on what basis? How does he choose “long sequences that are preserved over time”? How can he make any such determination without assuming it? And what is he comparing? Two DNA sequences? Doing some simple math to produce a figure that purports to indicate the amount of similarity? Am I right so far?


(Alan Fox) #20

Take data and insert them into a calculation to produce some figure.


(Bill Cole) #21

Mostly on long evolutionary history and also they tend to have mission critical cellular function.

You are assuming a long history of the diversity of life.

Several DNA sequences over deep time that indicate level of sequence preservation. These preserved sequences are used to calculate functional information.


(Alan Fox) #22

How precisely (if he indeed does this) does gpuccio decide whether some DNA sequence has a long evolutionary history? DNA does not survive more than a few thousand years. Of course it could be that you and he agree that extrapolating back from modern organisms genomes while assuming common descent is the explanation for the nested hierarchy and homology we see. That would be cargo-cult science in my book. Taking other people’s work as useful if it suits you! :slight_smile:

What on Earth is “mission-critical” in this context?


#23

It is interesting that functional information is being measured using evolutionary mechanisms.


(Alan Fox) #24

Well, I do think terrestrial life has a long history, about four billion years long. But that view is supported by a fair amount of consilient evidence.


(Alan Fox) #25

I thought that a bit odd, too!