None.
Not even worth evaluation or thought?
No reason because it has been evaluated. The argument simply doesn’t make sense. It is logically nonsensical. Why? Because the total size of sequence space says nothing about how well connected or densely functional sequences can be found in it. It just doesn’t.
He can just do it again then. And he’s still welcome to. Any moment now, I have plenty of tea and coffee. I’ll go buy biscuits if he calls first. There is a standing invitation for God to show up in the form of Jesus. NOTHING is preventing him. If he really exists, he’s staying away and hiding out of his own free will, not mine. I want to see him, for real.
I’ll go make coffee now. He can knock, or teleport in infront of me. I’ll believe he exists right then and there just as I would for any other person who shows up. The postman, my neighbor, family members. As soon as I see them I believe they exist. That’s how it works.
It’s interesting that you think you can dictate to the Creator of the Universe the specifications of how he must reveal himself to you.
It is actually he that gets to specify how he can be found. He is found by those who seek him. That’s how it works.
Oh yeah, the seeker has to have humility. Your hubris will not find him.
Heh, no me saying what it takes for me to believe that a person exists is not to “dictate” how they should behave. That’s the excuse people give when they can’t give a good reason for why he doesn’t just reveal himself when nothing is stopping him.
He can do whatever he want, but clearly he doesn’t want to reveal himself in a way that would convince me he exists. Not that my standard is unreasonable either, since even inanimate objects are capable of convincing me they exist. If I can see them, I believe they exist. There are rocks on the ground who have done more to make me aware of their existence than God has.
Maybe he just doesn’t exist, that’s a perfectly good explanation for why he doesn’t’ show up. If he wants me to know he exists, then it would make total logical sense for him to show up.
What does that even mean, and how do you know that the seeker needs to have “humility”? In what sense? Should I grovel and apologize and cry in fear that I’m not convinced he exists by a gust of wind?
And why? Why set these weird preconditions if he just wants me to know he exists and love him? Why must I show some sort of oddly servile behavior first? It’s childish and insecure.
No, but my eyes will if he shows up. He’s done it before I’m told. He’s purportedly shown up to people who proceeded to crucify him. And here I am, with coffee and biscuits(ok I ate most of them, bud I’d buy more if he wanted me to), and he’s welcome. I’d listen with great interest if he’d drop by and share some of his wisdom. Supposedly he knows everything and created the entire universe, I’m sure I could learn a lot from him.
Dale’s argument reminds me of the 1999 Sci-Fi comedy Mystery Men about a batch of bumbling second-rate superheros. There’s a character called Invisible Boy who can only show his invisibility power when no one is looking at him. 
Or worse, you must believe FIRST and only THEN will he reveal himself to you in a strange and illogical fashion you could interpret in a million different ways and could just be mere happenstance. Maybe in the burned pattern on toast there’s something that sorta could be a cross? Or suddenly a ray of sunlight is visible through the clouds on a rainy day. Like the people who claim to be able to divine the location of water with sticks, or astrology.
It’ll totally work if you start by convincing yourself it works, then you’ll see that it works! Praise water divination! Why aren’t you convinced yet? It’s your rational skepticism ehh I mean hubris standing in the way, you need to be more gullible ehh I mean humble.
Think again. It gives us 50% of the equation for evolvability (based on known evolutionary mechanisms) that we can directly calculate.
Without almost complete substitutability of nucleic and amino acids the length of the sequence kills the theory and the empirical data of preservation is telling us we don’t have complete substitutability. Not even close to complete substitutability. Play with the math.
Um, wat?
Bill’s posts make more sense if you sprinkle a nice balsamic vinaigrette on them.
You were a rum christian (lowercase c), @rumraket, only a believist and a “mere professor”, and clueless.
functional sequences divided by total sequence space.
Total sequence space can be calculated by known information where functional sequences can be estimated with empirical data.
For your claim to be true that the size of sequence space does not matter it would require that almost complete substitutability of nucleic acids and amino acids which scale with sequence length.
For example if you have a peptide chain of 30 amino acids and 50% of the amino acids work in each position then the chance of randomly finding this sequence is 1/2^30. As you increase peptide length substitutability needs to increase dramatically for your hypothesis to work.
The data that guys like gpuccio have been collecting do not support your hypothesis. PRPF8 has very little substitutability in its current application and it is 2300 AA’s long.
Suppose I had an anonymous benefactor. You probably would need to to meet him in person to believe he existed. 
Suppose he would be willing to become your benefactor too, but there are conditions. (Him having to submit to your conditions is laughable!)
LOL! Bill once again forgets about the effects of selection feedback in evolution, still thinks amino acid chains have to be assembled all at once by random chance alone. There must be some sort of psychological affliction which makes him repeat the same false narrative ad nauseum.
Remind us, what professional science journal did gpuccio publish these evolution-killing results in?
If the sequence does not function there is no selection available.
All you have to do is show the existing functional sequence is the only possible one that supports life, and that no other simple precursors are possible. That’s going to be tough because researchers like Dr. Joe Thornton have already identified simpler ancestral precursors for many proteins.
Poor Bill. Like Sisyphus he’s stuck forever rolling his ID-Creationist falsehoods up the hill only to see them crash back to the bottom.
Depends. If you’re merely claiming you know a guy, I’d believe it on your say so(we all have plenty of acquaintances, nothing unusual about that).
If you’re claiming your acquaintance is the actual biblical Jesus, then yes I’d want to meet him before believing it.
Suppose he would be willing to become your benefactor too, but there are conditions.
They’re not my conditions, he can be my benefactor all he wants, I’m not preventing him.
(Him having to submit to your conditions is laughable!)
For me to believe he exists? No, that’s the way it works for everyone. Either the conditions necessary to convince you are met, or if they aren’t then you don’t become convinced. There’s no way around this.
How do you know that?
