No, YOU make that case. It’s YOUR claim. It’s not automatically true until I prove it wrong with more data. It’s automatically disbelieved until a volume of data sufficient to warrant belief is provided. That’s the only rationally defensible position to take. You refrain from accepting a claim until it has met a rational burden of proof and not a second before.
No, the data isn’t telling you that. You don’t have enough data to support that conclusion, so it’s not telling you that. That data is compatible with literally billions of other models. A sample size of three is statistically insignificant here. You can make no rational claims about what the data says based on a comparison of three proteins. It’s absurd.
And the point is you don’t understand that the data you are providing simply isnt’ enough to substantiate your conclusion. What you’ve copy-pasted from Gpuccio is of no value or consequence.
Its your turn if you can piece together a data supported argument how evolutionary mechanisms can find these sequences that have not mutated over 50 million years.
No, it’s not my turn to do anything at all except point out your seemingly endless errors in reasoning.
Simply looking up the Prp8 protein on wikipedia will tell you there are human Prp8 mutants living among us, and some of these apparently negatively affect vision, leading some of them eventually go blind in adulthood. That’s strongly deleterious, which would explain why such mutants haven’t fixed in the population. But they’re clearly not lethal, since there are people running around with them.
One could probably go look up other variants of it in the human population. Now your claim is we should find none, because there is no hill, and it’s so conserved it means the majority of variants are lethal.
and your claim is that known evolutionary mechanisms created these sequences?
I don’t need to make any claims about how Prp8 came to exist. You will never get out of having to support your burden of proof. That’s just how it works.