You admitted years ago that if Axe’s number is right then evolution is not possible. Your argument was that his estimate is 10 order of magnitude off and then you cited several experiments. Axes number is around 250 bits.
Do you remember this Rum or do I have to dig through TSZ archives to toggle your memory?
Yeah I remember that. I’m not convinced that’s true any more.
Your argument was that his estimate is 10 order of magnitude off
Fair enough. You changed your position and your still a stand up guy 
You and others are now arguing that there is functional information in proteins that lack function. It seems that you are agreeing with us more and more.
I think we are coming to more common ground as this website is designed to accomplish. I also am impressed that you and Rum are working to understand the concept of FI. You may have been conceptually wrong in your last argument but it stimulated conversation that certainly improved my understanding of the concept. I am going to convey to Gpuccio the benefit of the conversation. Still waiting for gpuccio’s response.
Thanks.
The fact gpuccio is too afraid to come back here and deal with the criticisms of his idea himself is a clear enough response. 
There appears to be difference concepts being held by different parties, even among ID supporters. This doesn’t even get into the discussion of functional information vs. mutual information which is a whole other kettle of fish.
Art, you seem familiar with FI. Is there an actual practical use that you know of?
Not in the way you claimed he did. You misrepresented his position. Are you a stand-up guy who issues corrections?
I respectfully disagree with you and am going to move on at this point.
You seem to have trouble formulating English sentences. I endorse the “concept of FI being bogus,” I don’t dismiss it.
First, your refusal to correct your misrepresentation of Rum.
Second, why FI is bogus. As an example of question #2 that you are dodging, here are 2 papers:
https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(02)00629-3
https://www.cell.com/neuron/fulltext/S0896-6273(05)00644-6
These show that Myo1c has two functions in hair cells.
Now here are some more recent papers:
So, what is THE function of Myo1c so that we may assess its FI?
John, I think your argument here does not disqualify the concept of FI. It just changes how you might define it for this case. You can define it at the cellular level.
I’m sure that FI is functional in some setting or context, but to this biologist it seems to be irrelevant. I would be much more interested in which regions of the genome are conserved, and there are already other tools that do a great job of this. If I were looking for something like active sites in proteins I would probably use something like WebLogo (which I actually have used to determine preferred residues for a protease I was studying). FI isn’t useful for anything I do in molecular biology, but perhaps others have found some utility.
Any information metric that can’t be readily converted into some number of ‘warm cups of tea’ is suspect, in my book.
That’s quite a whiff, Bill. All the papers I cited are about function at the cellular level. Even a glance at the titles makes that clear.
So quit handwaving and define the alleged IT. The reason that you are handwaving is that the proper pronoun is THEM.
Here’s another one for you to ignore:
We are using the definition from this paper.
Then apply it, Bill. You’re not using it if you are unwilling or afraid (or both) to apply it.
here is an example of Gpuccio using it.
He’s not using it on Myo1c. My challenge to you is much simpler, simply to tell me what THE function is for the protein so that we can calculate FI.
Why are you tap-dancing, Bill? Do you not have any faith in this FI hypothesis?