You are assuming that his arguments are rational, and then dismissing people who disagree with you.
A straight jacket is not at issue here. An argument can be rational in the sense of not being gibberish, but still built on false premises and unsound extrapolations. Advocates can be demonstrably wrong without being irrational. Nobody is feeling anxious over the immense stakes.
No, I’m not kidding. You have previously been caught citing things you haven’t read. You recently cited a web page that you couldn’t have read because it didn’t exist.
That question is a consequence of your past behaviour, and if you find it objectionable you only have yourself to blame.
You’re wrong. I read it a long time ago. Many of the arguments therein are irrational, invalid, incognisant of biology or some combination thereof. For example, he ignores the existence of pseudogenes and the possibility of functionality that hasn’t evolved.
No, he didn’t.
He also says that all the green bricks have been hit. That would imply that no new functionality could ever evolve. It’s also flat out incorrect.
Non coding DNA is not a brick in this scenario. He is comparing selected protein sequences. You are creating a straw-man.
Why in this case @gpuccio has recently been invited to present, discuss and defend his ideas in the scholar corner, a rather rare thing here for ID proponents? Is it because his arguments are irrational? Or because he is incognisant of biology? Of course not, and I guess you know this perfectly well. So why are you playing this strange game?
Creationist whack-a-mole isn’t that strange, though the moving goalposts make it quite challenging. Like, for example, when you start asking about gpuccio’s article, but then ignore all the responses and ask about his invitation to PS instead.
Yeah, hence things that did not turn into green bricks(functional protein sequences), remain brown bricks(nonfunctional DNA, whether coding or not). That would be DNA that did not mutate into functional sequences, which would be all nonfunctional DNA, which would include much non-coding DNA, and the occasionally transcribed and translated but nonfunctional open reading frame.
You are creating a straw-man.
No, I simply understand how his analogy fails because I understand something about molecular biology.
I don’t think him being irrational is why he was invited in the first place, no. While I was not involved in inviting him to present his case here, my guess is it was out of courtesy. Probably because Bill Cole has referenced his posts many times before, and some people wanted to give Gpuccio the opportunity to bypass the middle man(Bill Cole) and address Gpuccio’s case directly on another forum than Uncommon Descent.
Nevertheless, his arguments are terrible and his methods fundamentally flawed. And him being invited here to present his arguments has become just another exposition of that fact.
He is drawing the bulls eye around the bullet holes. He is looking at just the proteins that did evolve instead of all the proteins that could have evolved. That’s the sharpshooter fallacy.
This is why scientists are reluctant to debate pseudoscience because it lends it more credence than it merits.
You really don’t understand. He is comparing 2 proteins sequences…hard stop.
Again a straw man. He is comparing 2 protein sequences…hard stop. Other proteins are irrelevant.
He isn’t making any conclusions based on that comparison?
Don’t you think there are conclusions to be made? There is a lot of interesting discussions if you consider design or mind as a possible solution. From my perspective your are making arbitrary objections. There is uncertainty to any scientific hypothesis.
Then @gpuccio wasn’t just comparing two proteins. The whole discussion is whether his methods and data can support his conclusions. They can’t.
Science isn’t about “considering possibilities”. Science is about testing hypotheses. I am interested in science.
If he was, his analogy would make even less sense. It’s already terrible as an analogy but please don’t make it worse than it already is, you’d just be shooting yourself in the foot.
They do a much better job than your hypothesis. His conclusions explains why sequences separated over long periods of time are far more similar than neutral mutation would predict. The conclusion is that they contain large amounts of essential functional information.
I agree. Mind as a mechanistic explanation for complex sequence and arrangements is a hypothesis. It is a testable mechanism that explains what we are observing. All you have been doing is denying this reality.
If the bricks in the wall are not supposed to be different sequences, the green ones functional, the brown ones nonfunctional, and the shots are mutations, then what he hell is the analogy even supposed to convey?
This does not make sense to me. He is comparing 2 sequences and making conclusions. Try to argue without invoking a straw man.