# 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:** 106

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![colewd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@colewd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/colewd)\
**Post date:** [September 20, 2018, 6:57pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-ubiquitin-response-to-gpuccio/1608/106 "2018-09-20T18:57:56Z")

</div>

> Yes. I’ve partly explained it here. [Swamidass: Computing the Functional Information in Cancer](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.

How do you establish functional information is increasing in cancer or is it assumed?

How do you establish that common descent can create FI or are you assuming this?

---

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