No, Bill, what I wrote quite literally means that what you wrote makes absolutely no sense to me, a biologist with decades of experience.
It’s pretty easy to see why if you bothered to take the time to review what you wrote.
1 Like
Still waiting for your explanation Bill. Please quit dodging the tough questions.
1 Like
I think you maybe mistaken here. I have explored it beyond what gpuccio has presented and I see very high levels of functional constraint with many proteins over long periods (greater than 50 million years). These proteins tend to be proteins that are part of complex structures such as muscles.
That makes zero logical sense.
3 Likes
What we were discussing was @gpuccio’s false assumption, explicitly echoed by you, that sequence conservation correlates with functional information. What you wrote has absolutely zero to do with that.
It’s actually hilarious because muscle proteins, with which I have considerable experience, are the easiest way to illustrate this absence of correlation.
1 Like
This is your opinion and I respectfully disagree. I think you guys are spinning a narrative. Looking at very complex function like splicing and seeing a high level of functional constraint based on preservation is real observable data that indicates a measurable level of functional information.
Given an AA sequence of length L the less solutions that work the higher the functional information by definition. How much is open for debate but the evidence of FI by observing constraint is not.
Go for it.
Why haven’t you, Bill?
The topic of this thread is Design and Nested Hierarchies. You seem to have completely bailed on the topic after being asked questions on your ID-Creationist claims you can’t answer.
Is that your way of conceding your claims are wrong?
2 Likes
Uniprot Actin beta chain
chicken human mouse cow…375 amino acids and 100% alignment. Whats your explanation?
What needs explanation?
My point is that there is no correlation between conservation and functional information. How do you propose that one determines whether a correlation exists or not with only a single protein, Bill?
If there was no functional information in this protein you could not see this result. Have you read Hazen and Szostak’s paper?
There is a stochastic correlation between constraint and functional information. How much is where the scientific challenge is.
That’s a big, fat straw man.
My point is that functional information is not correlated with conservation. Addressing my point would require considering multiple proteins.
I don’t see that you’re up for that, but I’m happy to be proven wrong.
There is no correlation, and you’re obviously afraid or unwilling to look for yourself. Why is that?
Explain how you can claim no correlation and see this constraint?
Easily, because proteins with far more functional information are far less conserved. Therefore, the fact is that there’s no correlation and @gpuccio’s claim is objectively false.
Do you really not know what the term correlation means, Bill, or are you pretending not to know to avoid embarrassment?
Yes. Now your next move is to define it to allow your argument to continue. Correlation has a wide range of outputs. If your point is we cannot correlate to a high confidence level yet I agree with you but in reality high confidence is probably not required here.
No, my point is that there is no correlation, to an extremely high confidence level.
First rule of holes, Bill…
cor·re·la·tion
/ˌkôrəˈlāSH(ə)n/
noun
- a mutual relationship or connection between two or more things.
“research showed a clear correlation between recession and levels of property crime”
-
the process of establishing a relationship or connection between two or more measures.
-
STATISTICS
interdependence of variable quantities.
I respectfully disagree.
Your disagreement makes no sense and is anything but respectful. Your head is firmly buried in the sand. Establishing correlation can never be accomplished with a single point.
Face it, Bill, you’re going to refuse to look deeply because you are afraid of what you will find. That’s why you are pretending that one can establish a correlation with a single sample.
There is simply no correlation between functional information (by any measurement or estimation) and sequence conservation. Them’s the facts, and it is trivially obvious if one considers MULTIPLE muscle proteins, even more obvious if one of them is myosin.
That means that @gpuccio’s hypothesis is dead in the water.
1 Like
