# A Ubiquitin Response to Gpuccio

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-ubiquitin-response-to-gpuccio/1608>\
**Category:** Side Conversation\
**Tags:** Design\
**Created:** [September 11, 2018, 8:42pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-ubiquitin-response-to-gpuccio/1608 "2018-09-11T20:42:27Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 105

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [September 20, 2018, 6:30pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-ubiquitin-response-to-gpuccio/1608/105 "2018-09-20T18:30:52Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> > The errors however, make it an erroneous attempt.
> 
> It is an estimate for sure but both would agree to that. Do you have a better method?

Yes. I’ve partly explained it here. [Computing the Functional Information in Cancer - #15 by swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/swamidass-computing-the-functional-information-in-cancer/1646/15). They have to take into account (1) the ability of common decent to create MI, and (2) alternate ways of arriving at the same function, and (3) the effect of purifying selection, and so on. Everyone of these factors biases their results upwards.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-ubiquitin-response-to-gpuccio/1608)._