There is no such evidence to insert.
It’s amusing how you alternate between accusing ID opponents of making strawman arguments, and then making the very arguments you claim are strawmen.
How would you support this claim?
Just one example: @gpuccio, who is apparently one of the strongest thinkers in the ID camp to listen to you guys tell it, had a massive thread all to himself to present some of this “evidence.” It turned out to be a joke of a discussion, with people who understand the science pointing out error after error in his argument, and his stubbornly refusing to admit to any of these.
That’s the entire history of the ID Creationist movement, in microcosm.
2 Likes
So your impression is that gpuccio was wrong. Can you be more specific why you think this is true?
Read the thread.
Well you could read the thread, and the numerous posts where I also explain the issues with his method. One of which, for the quadrillionth time, is that his method is unable to actually assess how many sequences meet the minimal threshold for function.
You remember Hazen & Szostak’s method for calculating the FI of some sequence, the one Gpuccio claims to be using? Well with that method you have to know the number of sequences that meet the minimal threshold for function. Gpuccio tries to do this by looking at the number of such similar sequences in the known diversity of life. But how the hell does he know there are no other possible sequences with that function? He simply doesn’t, he just assumes that and demands we prove him wrong. Sorry, that’s not how it works. So he doesn’t actually know the FI of any protein in any organism.
So that’s it. His method is a complete failure, it doesn’t accomplish what he wants it to. Done. Over. Case closed.
1 Like
I read it already and believe his argument is solid. The issue is that his measurement is indirect which he acknowledges. The window where evolution can work is so small I think this point is mute.
You believe a whole bunch of things. What you believe to be true is immaterial to what the reality is of this situation.
1 Like
This is a very poor argument in my opinion. It discounts the interdependence of proteins.
He does not know for sure but there is supporting evidence that he is right if you really think about how proteins work together. Prp8s sequence is restricted by the other proteins it has to work with to form U5 and ultimate interface with U1, U2, U4,U5,and U6.
Whats clear to me is you do not understand the argument. Rum does so I will continue with him.
Sure. That’s really going well for you so far, isn’t it?
If you were willing to dig in I would engage. You are very capable guy who is able to understand these arguments but you need to understand the detail. Assertions that the guys you emotionally favor are winning are not very interesting.
Hey, I’m quite happy to leave you to @Rumraket’s capable hands.
That you still think you have even a prayer of an argument is very funny.
As the Zen master says we’ll see 
Hey, let me reiterate that your opinions aren’t arguments.
It discounts the interdependence of proteins.
It doesn’t discount anything, you have no idea how many other proteins there are that could work together. You have to demonstrate that you know the number of sequences that meet the minimum threshold for function. As usual we have you just making stuff up on the spot. You sitting there and just casually tossing this idea out isn’t evidence of anything.
No, there’s no supporting evidence he’s right. And in any case, the question is if Prp8 could have evolved to carry out it’s present function. If and when some putative replacement for it needs to interact with another protein, it is entirely possible that other protein in turn could also be altered to cooperate with the Prp8 replacement.
Prp8s sequence is restricted by the other proteins it has to work with to form U5 and ultimate interface with U1, U2, U4,U5,and U6.
That doesn’t in any way imply there are no other proteins that could do it’s job, or that those other proteins could not also change or have suitable replacements. So your excuse here doesn’t work, and none of the ad-hoc rationalizations you’ve made up here even factor into any of Gpuccio’s methods. You’re making this stuff up on the spot to try to excuse what is a very poor attempt at determining the minimum threshold for function.
1 Like
You seem to have forgotten that you made a very false claim yesterday–that we present only rhetoric, not evidence.
He ignored the evidence.
Rum this is a very poor argument. This idea is important as it restricts the sequences that can work. We have common ground that proteins binding together have restrictions in their sequence.
We know from preservation data that restrictions exist in the splicing function.
Can you demonstrate it is possible. You are dealing with almost infinite sequence space so I think a little healthy skepticism is warranted.
This claim is not required. There can be billions of functional sequences that work but your mechanism still fails. Again there is a minuscule window where prp8 can evolve and a gigantic window where it cannot.
You made this claim and misrepresented me.
And yet you still don’t know that there are no other sequences that could do that work, you don’t even have any idea about the extend to which you might be underestimating it.
How do you know Bill?
We have common ground that proteins binding together have restrictions in their sequence.
But you have no idea how much. At all.
How big the pond is says nothing about how many fish there are. Think Bill, please.
But you don’t know that. You keep saying that, and you keep making up rationalizations for it, but you don’t know it.
All you have are bad excuses.