Is Functional Information Functional?

If you look at the argument here comments 150 and beyond. Rum and Art are arguing for not being able to measure FI and Art and particular is arguing for a very low bit count of prp8 at 70 bits. They both realize 500 bits is a formable challenge.

In my experience, those 500 bits are due to accumulation of single mutations over time. I don’t see why evolution couldn’t do that.

Here is an interesting exchange I had with gpuccio in a different thread:

This was rather enlightening. If gpuccio went back in time and saw the first ubiquitin protein come about through a single substitution mutation he would calculate that as a 4.3 bit change in information. Not 500. 4.3.

1 Like

How hilarious. Shouldn’t he be saying that we need to wait 400 million years before we start estimating the FI for ubiquitin?

Also, if pre-ubiquitin cannot do ubiquitin’s function, and the function only emerges after one mutation in pre-ubiquitin, isn’t the number of sequences that meet the known minimal threshold for function(of ubiquitin), one sequence? The one being created when pre-ubiquitin mutates into ubiquitin. If one sequence meets M(E_X), then the ratio is 1 divided by all of sequence space. So the change in function is maximal for sequence length(which would be roughly 328 bits for a 76 aa protein like ubiquitin), not 4.3 bits.

He really has NO idea what he’s saying or doing.

1 Like

Is it possible you don’t understand his argument and are misrepresenting it?

Sorry Bill but given the amount of evidence presented that possibility would exceed the Universal Probability Bound. :slightly_smiling_face:

Is it possible your question is an uninteresting rhetorical distraction?

1 Like

It’s also possible that I am trying to get you to understand his argument despite your arrogance. Can you figure out your error?

I haven’t made an error. Can you figure that out?

1 Like

Hey Bill, instead of doing these vague handwavy hints that people are doing errors, or suggesting that they are “possibly” wrong, why don’t you just proceed to point out what you think the error is? These silly rhetorical questions accomplish nothing.

I don’t believe I’ve made an error. Instead of just vaguely hinting that I have, explain what the error is. Is that within your capacity?


I will give gpuccio a chance to address your hypothetical counter argument. I will post it at UD. My belief is that in your hypothetical case the functional information except for 1 AA or 4.3 bits exists in the prior protein. Lets see if gpuccio agrees.

No, let’s not see if Gpuccio agrees. Let’s see if you, Bill Cole, the guy who CLAIMED I made an error, can explain what you think the error is.

If you think I’ve made an error you must be able to point it out. Right? You wouldn’t just be saying stuff just to do so? Right?


Bill admits he can’t point out an error in Rum’s analysis. :slightly_smiling_face:


What was that response of his but an outright admission of defeat? And yet he’s the kind of person who will just flat out declare something without actually knowing if it’s true. It is honestly pathetic.

1 Like

I already told you that the FI came from the mutated protein in your little hypothetical. Only 4.3 bits were added as gpuccio explained to T.

Bill you just repeated what Gpuccio says. Merely reapeating his claim doesn’t make it true.


Explain what my error is. Don’t just repeat Gpuccio’s words. Explain what error I made. Quote my words, explain how they imply or entail an error.


Rum this explanation is consistent with his methods if you understand them. Your making up a false narrative.

If a single mutation finds a complex function this is impossible unless the rest of the configuration had a workable sequence for the new protein. The workable sequence is the FI the old protein gives to the new protein.

If there was no FI in the prior sequence like a sequence of the same amino acids the scenario you described would not work.

I will now have to remain skeptical that you currently understand his methods.

LOL! “If you disagree with my unsubstantiated claims then you just don’t understand them!”

If that’s not the Creationist theme song it’s in the top three. :slightly_smiling_face:


IOW, if a new functional sequence arises after a single mutation, the original sequence (prior to the mutation) contains almost of the FI of the new sequence, even if it is useless junk.

I wonder if Bill can see the problem with this.

1 Like

If the prior sequence was useless junk the scenario would not work.