(facepalm) No Bill, preserved sequences don’t show anything about the number of possible other life supporting protein combinations there could be.
@moderators
Is this long, gnarly, twisting noose of a thread really what you want becoming a hallmark of @PeacefulScience.Org?
This discussion should have been reigned in and re-framed long ago.
Ugh.
Is someone holding a gun on you and forcing you to read it?
1 Like
Every discussion on this list reflects on @swamidass’ work.
Then stop whining and let him decide.
2 Likes
It reflects well on @swamidass, that people whom he disagrees with are allowed participate.
2 Likes
We are talking about a specific function called splicing out introns. There are a limited amount of sequences that can perform this function and the preservation of PRPF8 tells us that it is more limited then if PRPF8 was not a conserved protein.
No Bill, you claimed there are a limited number of proteins which can support life. It’s pure made up bullshit on your part. Like claiming since only the Lucas no.DDB106 distributor cap fits the 1968 MGB engine there can be no other car engines or electrical system designs anywhere.
So you think functional space is as large as sequence space? The number of proteins that can support life is unlimited? Sequence doesn’t matter?
It is possible (maybe likely) the number of proteins that can support life is a countable infinity.
Knock off the dishonesty Bill. I didn’t say the number was unlimited. I said your claim the number was too tiny for evolution to find is unsupported bullshit, which it is.
1 Like
I agree the number could be very large however it is evident that the total sequence space is larger.
This is what you said Tim. Was this an error on your part?
The only error I seem to have made is thinking you could carry on a honest discussion.
1 Like
Are you finally going to stop with the false claim evolution has to search the entire sequence space to find functional sequences?
1 Like
Yet you said my claim that the number was limited was BS. My bad for interpreting that this is a claim for unlimited living proteins.
Yes it is your bad for being a dishonest word-twister there Bill. You claimed the number was SO limited evolution couldn’t find it. That’s still unsupported bullshit and we both know it. Now you’re just squirming to avoid further embarrassment.
I don’t think it has to search the entire search space but with 2000 unique protein families function is way more then a few mutations away as you implied.
Relative to search space I believe we don’t have a known mechanism that can find it. There is empirical data the supports this claim. As Joshua said functional space can be very large. If search space is orders of magnitude larger the problem remains.
Is it impossible for you to make a post and not dishonestly misrepresent what was said? No one said or implied it only took “a few mutations” to get our extant proteins. I said they have been evolving from simpler precursors, usually in parallel, for 3.8 billion years . Evolution didn’t have to search the entire ginormous sequence space to find them because they evolved using the feedback from selection.