Yes, but what on Earth could have persuaded him that is even within the realm of being a valid proxy?
Ironically, even Douglas Axe has proven Gpuccio’s method so exceptionally incapable of that, that it is effectively incomprehensible how wrong it is, in degree.
Remember Axe’s number from his 2004 paper? 10-77 for a protein 155 amino acids long. Let’s forget all about all the things that make Axe’s number wrong and just, for the sake of argument here take Axe’s number at face value. The total sequence space for L=155 proteins is 20155 = ~4.6 × 10201
So if only 1 in every 1077 sequences is functional, but there’s 20155 = ~4.6 × 10201 total possible sequences of equal length, then there must be
~4.6 × 10201 / 1077 = ~4.6 × 10124 total functional sequences.
Isn’t the common saying among ID-creationists that evolution can at most have sampled something in the range of ~1045 sequences in the entire history of life? If that is true, does that not immediately imply there is an unfathomable diversity of unsampled functional sequences out there still? How do those show up in blast searches again?
Nothing of what Gpuccio is doing makes sense. NONE of it.
Now comes the key question I want you to try your best to answer, with math:
How on Earth is evolution supposed to have sampled the totality of functional sequences in a way where you can derive that totality from a blast bitscore?
Edit: Suddenly I recall we’ve been over this exact thing before.