The reason I said this is that you claimed that the quantity of information depended on the sequence length. While this is true for Shannon information it is not true for functional information.
I agree. I will spend some time with the paper.
It is true for gpuccio’s method of measuring functional information, as can easily be seen by looking at the values he gives for the functional information in the human versions of the studied proteins.
I predict you won’t understand this.
2 Likes
This is true unless you make a real argument beyond assertion. Can you explain how he comes up with the human value?
You should have taken wagers.
1 Like
You were the one that presented this graph. If you don’t know how the values it shows were calculated, that’s your problem.
3 Likes
Bill is just the salesman. You can’t expect him to understand the claims of others he’s pushing. 
2 Likes
I think I understand how the bits of functional information are approximated. They are human conserved bits so the number is relative. Whats interesting is the jump between invertebrates and vertebrates and then the 400 million years of preservation.
I know! Not at all.
And therefore it doesn’t represent information at all.
The jump is an artifact caused by choosing sequences that are more similar to human. You are actually close to comprehending this problem.
1 Like
You need to do more thinking here. It contains approximations but claiming it doesn’t represent information at all is a very suspect conclusion.
You’re completely wrong here. Gpuccio didn’t run away from the discussion, not at all. It is the administrator of this site who unilaterally decided to close the conversation. Why is that? I don’t know; but it certainly gave the impression of some kind of stampede by gpuccio’s opponents.