A point of order, but, as established in a previous thread, Gpuccio’s Hot Mess isn’t “a method of design detection” so much as a method of “‘design assumption’ and ‘design assertion’”.[1]
That thread established that there has been no strong connection between Conservation and “Functional Sequence Complexity”, and that no substantiation had been given of any connection between either and either Functional Information or Design.
That thread was also memorable for your airy assertion that:
This assertion being rendered all the more ludicrous by the fact that, AFAIK, nobody, and particularly not you, Gpuccio, or anybody else in the “not properly filled out or developed” (i.e. “vacuous”) ID Echo Chamber, has ever even measured “500 bits of FI”, let alone developed a reasonable comprehension of the circumstances that could, or could not, give rise to it.
This renders that assertion, like most of your assertions on that and this thread, as nothing more than an articulation of naked fideism to the ID cause.
I would have thought that, at this late stage, your (and @colewd’s) fideism to that cause was sufficiently well-established that it could be left unsaid – but you both seem determined to remind of it, and of its vacuity, at every opportunity.
Addendum:
Given that in that previous thread, I opened by asking:
I suppose I should feel positively about the fact that the error rates of Gpuccio’s ‘method’ are at least being discussed. I would however feel more positively if these error rates were being measured, instead of merely being asserted.