Gil grabs some ammunition and shoots down Doug Axe's 2004 extrapolation by a factor of more than 10^44

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Giltil

Why are you saying I am wrong when you know perfectly well that it is indeed the case that gpuccio’s methodology aims at calculating FI?

According to @gpuccio himself in post 153 of this thread, the aim of his exercise is clear:
“It [my contribution here] is, instead, aimed at intellectual confrontation about a very inmportant paradigm difference: design against neo-darwinism to explain biological functions.”

Gpuccio: Functional Information Methodology

Gpuccio is a poster at Uncommon Descent who published a blog article at UD arguing that proteins have high functional information (FI), and must have been designed. His work is commonly referenced by ID proponents. This is his post: We asked for him to explain his methodology further. @colewd asked him (comment 343), and gpuccio gave a response (comment 356). He has agreed to respond to reasonable critique. OK, so here is a brief primer about my methodology to measure Functional Information in proteins: a) I use Blast to measure sequence homology between proteins, in bits. I take the bitscore from the Blast algorithm as it is, with some consideration of the number of identities and similarities, too. b) I am interested in homologies that are conserved throughout long evolutionary periods. I consider that kind of homology as a very good estimator of FI. The reason is very simple: a specific sequence can be conserved for those long time windows only if it is under very strong fu…

@Giltil

You may disagree on the fact that his method works, but you can’t deny its aim.

@gpuccio did. He made it clear that his aim is confrontation. It’s just a polemic weapon that he’s abandoned you to defend alone.