You’ll keep making the same stupid mistake and using the same stupid argument until you die. There’s no getting through a neutronium skull.
1 Like
The claim is supported with the observation of preservation. It is also supported with the diversity of protein types and the substitutability of amino acid positions. On the other had you are claiming PRPF8 evolved. On what basis?
Insults are not arguments. You have a problem reconciling time and combinatorial space. Nice dodge 
You didn’t provide any values for HOW limited or how much is TOO limited. Try again.
Yes I did previously. All it takes is less than 50% substitutability of each amino acid sequence. This would not be true given the preservation we are observing …
Neither is ignoring the corrections to your dumb mistake and rote repeating the same dumb mistake 100x over.
Evolution didn’t have to search the whole combinatorial space because the sequences didn’t fall together all at once. They evolved over time from simpler functioning precursors. You whole “it’s too improbable” argument has been GIGO from day one because it assumes a method of production known to not be real.
I know it’s a waste of time to try and use reason, logic, and scientific evidence with you Bill. I’m doing this for others who may be reading. You’re hopeless with your willful ignorance.
That doesn’t cover all possible sequence space Bill. You’re dodging the question again like you always do.
This is a “just so” story that does not fit with the molecular evidence. You are asserting that it can finding the function without searching for it yet there is no homology as a stepping stone you can point to. Even if there was you cannot model your claim.
The irreducibly complex nature of what we are observing falsifies the simple to complex story. T claims there was a system prior to the ubiquitin system. Where is the evidence? He does not have any as it is just a commitment to the unsupported simple to complex model of evolutionists.
It fits with all the available molecular evidence and dovetails nicely with everything else from genetics and paleontology we know about evolution. Your pitiful ignorance of the evidence doesn’t make the evidence go away Bill
50% substitutability is 2^2300 possible combinations. This is problematic given 2^150 evolutionary searches available since first life.
So you are reverting to assertion.
LA LA LA Bill ignores the problem, ignores the scientific evidence, keeps chanting his already disproven nonsense. It will never change. 
Tim when you have no argument so you are reverting to assertion. Why do you believe in this theory if you cannot make a coherent argument for it?
Stay ignorant Bill. Whatever you do don’t crack a biology or genetics or paleontology textbook. The sudden influx of relevant information may be fatal to an unprepared and unwilling mind.
1 Like
We know Bill. No one in the three or so years you’re been rampaging online has ever provided you with any scientific papers, or scientific evidence, or detailed scientific explanations. You saw through the Devil’s ruses every time. Jesus must be so proud of you for sure!
1 Like
If the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises, then it isn’t reasonable. The key part of reasonable is reason. If you’re not reasoning validly from premises to conclusion, you are not doing reason at all.
Your objection is arbitrary.
My objection can’t possibly be more relevant. None of your premises entail or even imply the conclusion. This is the very essence of debate, nothing arbitrary about it. If you can’t actually articulate why the conclusion you believe must be true, because you can’t think of any actual reasons that would imply it’s truth, then even you yourself should stop believing in your conclusion.
Its a much stronger conclusion than the nested hierarchy explains common descent.
You mean common descent explains the nested hiearchy. But stop trying to change the subject. You have continued to fail to give arguments that lead to or even imply the conclusion you constantly assert.
Why? Once again you state some random factoids, but none of them entail or imply the conclusion you declare. Do you even know how arguments actually work?
1 Like
They are not random factoids. Your objection is arbitrary and you are merely asserting your position. Why does the conclusion not follow? We have evidence of limited functional space and an exceedingly large sequence space. We don’t know the exact ratio’s but there are very few possible ratios where evolution works and none are supported by the observations. If you are claiming universal common descent through an evolutionary process what model would work? How do you get 170 proteins to bind and work together with PRPF8 without a pre determined sequence?
Again you are just asserting here and not explaining why it is unreasonable to conclude that evolution by known mechanisms is unlikely.
If you don’t stop asserting Rum I must conclude that you don’t understand supported argument.
Bill to English Translation:
Any unsupported “it’s too improbable!” claim Bill pulls from his nether regions = solid evidence for ID-Creationism
Any scientific evidence provided for evolution = assertion.
