So you mean to say you could sort of just decide to believe that evidence you don’t find persuasive, nevertheless just IS persuasive despite what appears to you to be obvious flaws in it?
That is not what I said. That the universe had a beginning event has been compelling to many, many of whom are no doubt more intelligent than you. Or, you can just pretend that that does not qualify as evidence.
Okay. But I don’t find that compelling. So here your advice to me is that I should just decide to be compelled by it? And you yourself would be able to do that?
Let’s reverse the situation. Could you just decide to NOT find it compelling? Could you just decide that your experiences simply weren’t good enough to convince you, and then truly stop believing?
You are mistaking what I am saying. You can, in humility, decide to consider it as possible evidence, in conjunction with other things, instead of just saying, illegitimately, “No, that is not evidence.”
Possible evidence? I’m not sure what you mean by that. Anything can potentially be evidence for some claim or hypothesis. I already believe that is the case, that is how I understand logic and evidence to work. That it is possible that some object, or observation, entity, or data, can be evidence for some claim or hypothesis. It is POSSIBLE evidence, sure.
But IS it evidence? I don’t find “it’s possible that it’s evidence” a compelling reason to believe. I have to be persuaded that it actually IS evidence, and then I need to find the evidence persuasive.
You understand? If you show me a blurry picture of some disc-shaped object in the sky and claim it’s a extraterrestrial space craft carrying alien visitors from another planet, I’m going to agree that indeed your blurry picture is “possible evidence” for your claim. It might even BE evidence if I find out that the picture has not been doctored or altered in any way, and if I trust you. That’s the first two hurdles out of the way. It is “possible” evidence, and it even IS evidence.
But is it persuasive evidence? Does it suffice to truly convince me that your interpretation of it is correct? Is a blurry picture of a disc-shaped object in the sky a persuasive piece of evidence that the disc shaped object really is a vehicle able to travel interstellar space and is carrying members of an advanced alien civilization? I think we can agree that it isn’t persuasive evidence of that.
And I can’t just decide to be compelled by it against my nature.
You want every single piece of evidence to be totally persuasive in itself. That way you can deny that there is any persuasive evidence, even when in toto it should be and is.
Now THAT’S an example of humility.
Bill, please cite your source. Then tell us what you think it means and how it supports some argument you may want to make.
And that’s an example of quote mining, because in context with the italicized text comparing what someone who is not a true Christian experiences with one who is, yes, he was clueless.
It’s from the article that I cited to Rum from gpuccio at UCD a few posts above. It shows preservation of AA positions comparing the human proteins to other living organisms. These are proteins that are part of the spliceosome.
That’s not quote mining, because I quoted everything you wrote. Dale, you are the antithesis of humility.
You quoted me out of context. That would be quote mining.
And it is humility with respect to Whom that matters.
There is no context that would make your quote look humble.
Thanks for proving my point in spades, Dale:
And the King will make answer and say to them, Truly I say to you, Because you did it to the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.
Thank you for tacitly acknowledging that you quote mined.
My quote does not need to look humble when the topic under discussion is humility before God.
And your Matthew quote is out of context with respect to whom we need to humble with as well. Jesus was not humble when he was rebuking the Pharisees, for instance.
(I wouldn’t say you were long on humility, yourself.)
I didn’t. Quote mining is about changing the meaning of the quote by removing context.
Maybe I’m the first to point this out, but you’re not Jesus, Dale. Therefore, you can’t use Jesus’s behavior to justify a massive exception for humble ol’ you.
Because YOU did it to the least of these my brothers, YOU did it to me.
Did I claim to be like you did?
Yes, and fallaciously supporting your argument by taking a quote out of context. By your taking the quote out of context, you were falsely implying that I was saying he was clueless about everything in general.
Nor did I claim to be. You are excelling in taking things out of context. That was merely an example of how you are misapplying with whom humility is needed. And “…you’re not Jesus” is a nice red herring, as well.
And yet again, misunderstanding, maybe intentionally for appearances, the subject under discussion, namely with whom humility is needed in a particular instance.
OK, now what point are you making? Incidentally, how do you determine “bits” for amino acids?
What does this have to do with your “substitutability”? Please put some effort into parsing out the logic of the argument you are making.
You started by saying “PRPF8 has very little substitutability”, and you apparently meant this to imply (as in be evidence for the claim) that the size of sequence space tells us how densely packed functional sequences are in that space.
I’m looking at the graph and I don’t know what these bits are, and it isn’t clear to me what the different bars really represent. When it says “cellular slime molds”, does that include all known slime molds? Is “fungi” just one representative species, an average of all of them, and in that case what’s it an average of?
And most importantly, how does this tie in with your claim that the size of sequence space itself tells us how frequently we might find functional sequences in that space, and how well-connected they are?
Perhaps you could start a new topic and begin with taking some time to explain in more detail how your argument is supposed to work.
This shows me that you are not looking at counter arguments. Gpuccio’s work has been discussed extensively at TSZ where Jock accused gpuccio of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy despite it being a very poor analogy of gpuccio’s methods.
The number of bits is a measure of the functional information. It is essentially the number of preserved amino acids in the string divided by the total sequence space and taking the log base 2 of that number. Demski used log base 2 to measure functional information.