Gpuccio: The Case of the Starry Sky is Bad Faith

He already posted your verbatim words twice Bill. How long do you plan on keeping up the denial of what you wrote?


It’s not John. Do a sequence comparison. This also is not support of the claim you made.

You are absolutely correct. I don’t see any good reason to think that a protein that really does exhibit 500 bits of FI could not evolve. For example, just to point out one possibility, it could evolve from a similar protein with another function.

I just want to reiterate that we don’t actually know of any proteins that really do have 500 bits of FI. We can use Gpuccio’s flawed method to calculate FI and we can get 500 bits or more with that method, but the method is flawed because it does absurd extrapolations as I have shown in the “origin of proteins” thread.


No, Bill, YOU need to do them. I can see that @gpuccio ignored Art’s point and you didn’t correct him. No sequence alignment is necessary to assess that.

1 Like

So, Bill, you have it from Rumraket that you misrepresented his position.

Will you address this?


I believe Rum is changing is position as he stated previously. I could also be wrong but it really does not matter. My intent was not to misrepresent him as there was no reason to do so. His current claim is that a protein can evolve given modification from another protein. He still has not accounted for the origin of the 500 bits of FI.

Sorry, but Rum is the one who tells us what his position is, not you.

It really does.

Yet you did, your misrepresentation was very obvious to me, and there was a very obvious reason for you to do so.

Now you are displaying bad faith.

What about the bad faith you displayed by misrepresenting Art Hunt and Rumraket’s actual position?

In what way, exactly?

If I did it was not intentional so it is not bad faith. I will try to find Rums original position but he is a stand up guy and may find it himself.

IF? There’s no if. You misrepresented Rumraket’s position. Period.

Whether you did so in bad faith or not, a correction is called for.

1 Like

My example was general and hypothetical, not specific to this case. You seemed to need some instruction regarding how a misrepresentation could be distinguished from a difference of opinion. So that was provided to you.

1 Like

I made no claim. Again, I was speaking hypothetically. Sorry if I was not clear about that. I have not read what @gpuccio wrote on UD, and have no intention of doing so. So I have no idea what wild, outlandish tales he may or may not be telling over there.


That’s hilarious. You go and grossly misrepresent others’ positions as a sycophant over there, then deny it here.

And I’m a bully for pointing that out? That’s absurd.


To be clear, we closed the @gpuccio thread. I am willing to reopen it. Better yet we can start a new thread. @gpuccio is not banned and can propose whatever rules he likes for the next exchange. We can work with him.


I don’t think you will try.

I am 99.999% certain that his position hasn’t changed, as I share it. It’s basic molecular biology.

This is the problem with your pretense that these positions are somehow specific to people. We aren’t just discovering this stuff now, as you are. We have been immersed in it for decades, and you are presuming to understand it better than we do with your incredibly shallow approach.

That’s not an argument from authority, btw.

So it’s a stone-cold fact that you misrepresented Rumraket (and virtually certainly Art) at UD.

Are you going to correct your misrepresentation? Whether you meant it or not is irrelevant to that ethical imperative.

A refusal to correct it would suggest that it was deliberate.


I’m still waiting for an explanation of how, in your mind, I am doing so.

If you are not accusing me of intent that is not bad faith. I believe Gpuccio’s and Behe’s positions have been misrepresented here but not intentionally. As to whether Rum changed his position that is up in the air as his position may have changed and his explanation does not account for the origin of the 500 bits.

88 posts were split to a new topic: Is Functional Information Functional?