But I addressed this, do please respond to what I said in reply, instead of repeating your objection.
Actually, in your posted excerpt, you argue that the wild-type would have been preferable, the number would have been higher than Axe’s result. Along the lines of what Axe said…
If function and fitness are correlated, would you expect data to demonstrate this?
Is there data to support this?
Sorry if you find this very confused. Maybe the following will help:
No he said the diametrically opposite.
Axe writes:
Both Hunt and Venema seem to think the outcome would have been more favorable (i.e., functional sequences would have been more prevalent) had I used the highly proficient natural enzyme as a starting point rather than the handicapped version. Actually, as a demonstration will show, the opposite is true.”
So that was Axe saying that if the wild-type enzyme had been used instead of the unstable mutated one he deliberately created, we would have found FEWER functional sequences. That’s what those words mean.
And that is a lie and I explained why. Had the wild-type enzyme been used (the wild type is more stable and can therefore tolerate more mutations), his “pass rate” would have been higher than 0.38.
So it’s 0.38153 × 10-13 ≈ 10-77
Had it been, for the purpose of illustration, 0.60 instead (the enzyme could tolerate 60% of mutations at the typical position, rather than 38% of mutations at the typical position, 60% is more than 38%), then Axe’s calculation would get us:
0.60153 × 10-13 ≈ 10-47
10-47 is fantastically more probable than 10-77. It is in fact 1030 times more probable.
Can you actually read?
The way you say they are related is that having one means having the other and lacking the other means lacking the one. Let’s set aside how the phrasing you chose would suggest both to be binary attributes, and how regarding function in particular you rather consistently treat it as something either present or absent with naught inbetween, going even so far as to suggest the need for a threshold to segregate the otherwise smooth gradient into two distinct sub-intervals to allow for the binary treatment you seek. Even granting you that you are acknowledging the complex and multi-dimensional character of both terms, there is no mention of anything that would indicate this relationship between fitness and function outside and beyond of your say-so. There is no explanation as to how you came to this conclusion, nor what experiment any of the rest of us could perform in order that we see it too. If anything, you insist that this cannot be assessed by measurement.
“Vibes” isn’t a mockery on my part. Rather it is the only chance for a semblance of coherence in your statement. If something cannot be assessed by either methodologically sound means or by subjective ones, then nonsense through and through is the only thing left for it to be.