The wrong time to the lca of deuterostomes is the least of his problems. Even assuming his ages were correct his method still wouldn’t work.
1 Like
Not only isn’t he an expert, he’s apparently incapable of looking it up in the literature. But that particular problem means that this supposed rapid jump in information (again, what he’s using isn’t actually a measure of information) doesn’t exist. Estimates vary, but if you check www.timetree.org, almost all of them are in excess of 600ma.
Incidentally, the oldest clearly deuterostome fossils are small pieces of stereom from Cambrian Stage 2, say 530ma. But of course that must postdate the divergence between echinoderm and chordate lineages.
This is truly cargo cult science.
2 Likes
The split gpuccio is pointing to is not between echinoderm and chordate lineages but between vertebrates and some pre-vertebrate chordates.
Whatever, do you agree with him when he says that the information which can be found in vertebrates but not in non vertebrates ( including early chordates) most probably must have been generated in a window of less than 100 my, say between 540 my ago and 450 my ago? And if you disagree, what is your estimation of this particular window?
Looks to me as if he’s looking at the origin of jawed vertebrates.
Isn’t this pointless without some quantification of both the amount of information - for which no sensible estimate has been offered - and the rate at which it can accumulate through evolution?
2 Likes
That is obviously wrong. Some of that “information” likely arose while you were writing that sentence.
1 Like
Nope. Talking about “deu”. If by “deuterostomes” he actually means “pre-vertebrate chordates”, that’s yet another simple error. And that split would in fact be almost as old anyway, much more than 440ma.
No. First, he has no measure of information. Similarity to human sequences is not a measure of information. Second, he fails to include hagfish and lampreys, jumping directly to sharks from whatever he means by “deuterostomes”.
It’s a meaningless question based on false premises. No actual way to answer.
1 Like
Much more than 440ma; can you quantify this « much more »? Note that if the split occurred more than 440 ma, it would strengthen rather than weaken Gpuccio’s argument.
Similarity to human sequences is not always a measure of information. But in case the similarity is conserved through deep time, the conserved similarity expressed in bitscore is strongly connected to functional information. Using Gpuccio’s own words, « in this particular case of long conservation, the degree of similarity becomes a good estimator of functional constraint, and therefore of FI. The unit is the same (bits). The meaning is the same, in this special context »
If he was using Szostak’s definition the meaning would not be the same. I don’t think he has a good measure of conservation either.
2 Likes
A while back I stated:
Let me see if I’m keeping track of all the assumptions here:
-
“in this particular case of long conservation, the degree of similarity becomes a good estimator of functional constraint”;
-
a rigorous definition exists for “functional constraint”;
-
“functional constraint” is a good proxy for Functional Information;
-
a rigorous definition exists for “Functional Information”; and
-
Functional Information is a good proxy for the presence on Design.
First question: have I covered all the assumptions?
Second question: do we have solid evidence supporting any of these assumptions?
Because unless we have solid evidence for all of these assumptions, this is not a “design inference” (let alone “design detection”) so much as “design wild speculation”.
Addendum: the definition that I’ve seen for “Functional Information” only applies within the restricted context of “a given system and function, x (e.g., a folded RNA sequence that binds to GTP)”[1] – it is unclear to me that this definition can be robustly expanded to an unrestricted context – e.g. of an entire organism.
2 Likes
I do find it funny that scientists went with deuterostome, which means “mouth second”, instead of the more obvious name.
Anyway, back to the program.
2 Likes
That wouldn’t have happened today, I bet.
1 Like
Already answered. And no, it would weaken his argument because he’s claiming a sudden jump in his pointless measure of information. The longer the interval, the less the jump is a jump.
Not ever. And Gpuccio is just wrong. He’s not measuring conservation. He’s measuring distance, which depends to some degree on conservation but to a much greater degree on time, and that should be obvious. As I mentioned before, chimpanzees by that measure are have the most information of all. Your hero’s clay feet are showing.
2 Likes
I don’t understand your point. We are discussing the transition from non vertebrates to vertebrates, aren’t we? Isn’t the case that at some time point T in the past, a split occurred from some pre vertebrates line and the vertebrate line? If so, isn’t it the case then that the older the split, the shorter the transition? I am asking these questions in good faith in the hope to get a better understanding of the issue.
So in case I am wrong here, I would welcome your explanation.
Definitely not.
It’s supposedly the transition from non-vertebrates to cartilaginous fish. Whether your failure to understand that is due to Gpuccio’s unclear writing or your own fault, I leave to you.
1 Like
That’ll be a first.
1 Like
It seems to me your question assumes that, immediately after the split, the first organism on the vertebrate line will have all the features that define a vertebrate. Is that how you understand it?
1 Like
We’ve been over why it isn’t before.
Have you forgotten, like, everything on the subject?
1 Like
No. We’re talking about the spacing between the split between vertebrates and other deuterostomes and the split between sharks and bony fish. Or at least that’s what Dpuccio put on his graph. It’s not the time of a single divergence, it’s the interval between two of them. The older the first one, the more time between the two splits.
Your derogatory and unsubstantiated comment does you no credit
Derogatory, yes. Unsubstantiated, no.
We’ve been through all of this before. Did you forget, or are you just pretending to forget?