If I recall correctly it’s worse than that. He uses bitscores rather than sequences and only uses the best of those at each stage. That’s ignoring the variations in the sequences he does look at - even their existence.
@Giltil! You there? Can you answer any of the dozens of criticisms you’ve been offered so far? Is Gpuccio just right because he is because he is because he just is damnit?
Well yes but the BLAST bitscores are calculated from alignments of protein sequences. So, in effect, the sequences were used at some stage. Still fatuous for all the aforementioned reasons.
Yes, but that is still throwing information away. The bitscores only tell us how the chosen proteins compare to the human version, not how they compare to each other. All Gpuccio’s method tells us is that more closely related species tend to have more similar proteins. He’s thrown away anything that would let him work out what is conserved, how much variation is allowed at each position and so on.
Myosin is a fine case of that. Half of a conventional myosin heavy chain consists of an alpha-helical coiled-coil, which has a heptad repeat with hydrophobic residues in two of the positions and does not tolerate the kinks created by proline residues.
Most of the fundamental assumptions are ludicrous. It just so happens that myosin, actin, and tropomyosin, some of the best-understood proteins we know, provide a simulacrum of everything that is blatantly wrong with this notion.
Just like Nigel Tufnel in Spinal Tap! Do you think that @Giltil understands why it’s funny?
I do suspect that he does. I just think he has taken it as axiomatic that we must be somehow wrong. How else am I to interpret this response of his?
I don’t know. Maybe he simply admires Nigel’s ideological commitment to knobs that go to eleven and sees nothing funny about the clip.
What seems clearer is that he can no longer see a way through his cognitive dissonance to defend the notion.
The use of the term “literal magic” simply says you are committed to methodological naturalism. This is the current method of science and the box the parsimony claim forces you into. The data does not however support this model as you cannot reconcile through population genetics the differences in genetics we are observing.
The scientific restriction is forcing you away from making real sense of the data which is indicating multiple points of origin vs a single point.
This is incoherent. There is no “the parsimony claim” here.
Show us why not. With maths. If you cannot, then this is a lie on your part.
Being free to construct models with predictive power is not a restriction. Being committed to conclude some particular model irrespective of the data would be. But that’s a restriction you are under, not I.
By “making real sense of the data” of course you mean “concluding it’s magic”.
Until you can point to any such data, this is best treated as just another lie.