What you call a “flaw” maybe simply that the analogy is not exactly the same as the original claim. If it was exactly like the original claim would it be an analogy?
What would be your argument that it is “flawed” or a poor analogy?
In one case we know the existence of the designer in the other we need to infer existence. While direct evidence of the designer would be preferred does lack of direct evidence really nullify the inference?
I was one of many who participated in the long and very tedious discussion of gpuccio’s functional information criterion. In fact I wrote two posts at TSZ (here and here) that led to discussion on that. In the end we found that unlike Szostak he was assuming that all sequences that had less functionality than the one which we saw, were so much less functional that there was no evolutionary path to the observed sequence. This is way different from Szostak and Hazen’s FI. They were not even attempting to use FI to discuss whether evolution could reach that sequence.
BTW, I am failing to access TSZ, there is some 404 problem.
The comparison Gpuccio is interested in is between species whose common ancestor lived a long time ago because in that case, the similarities denote conservation throughout long evolutionary time.
That isn’t what the graph shows, though. He may be interested in it, but the graph just shows that (with an exception or two), the longer ago that a taxon split from humans, the less genetic similarity it has. That’s not about conservation. And the big lesson supposedly in that graph, of a sudden leap in genetic information, is spurious.
FI=-log2(target space /search space).
This is the definition Gpuccio uses, which is also Szostak’s definition.
But that’s not what he presents in the graph. He shows BLAST results. Neither the target space nor the search space is the same thing Szostak is talking about.
Indirect inference or deduction tends to involve more assumptions, and therefore be less certain than direct detection – so mislabeling “Design deduction” as "design detection* is a form of exaggeration.
You’re correct. This is why Dembsky wrote a book titled « the design inference » rather than « design detection ».
Gpuccio uses BLAST results as a proxy for FI as defined by Szostak.
As pointed out already by many, it’s a ridiculous and invalid proxy. All your little one-line non sequiturs here put you in danger of going down @colewd’s road. Are you sure you want that kind of image?