We are talking about Art’s article that I cited.
Seriously, @colewd. If you don’t know how to determine probabilities after all this time here, then …
Seems pretty hopeless.
1 Like
Let’s not litigate this now.
You need to think about the process of making a flight feather and how over 100 proteins that are compatible could form before flight is initiated. This is comparible to Gpuccio’s safes that require proper combinations of all safes dialed before they all can open.
This is just the beginning of the issue. The problem with Dawkins is he ignores the biochemical hurdles that evolution faces in his discussion above.
If you still do not know how to determine probabilities after all this time, then these discussions about proteins etc. are pretty pointless.
2 Likes
LOL! You didn’t even look at the new paper on the molecular evolution of flight feathers I just posted did you? Just keep on chanting your same ID-Creationist mantra, evidence be damned.
I agree lets differ litigation of this issue. Whether your assertion that I am wrong is correct as the Zen master says we will see.
That seems to be your new favorite excuse every time you are shown wrong.
Bombardier beetles don’t have feathers. You need to get back on topic.
4 Likes
In the video he claimed to have complex adaptions like the eye covered simply by showing morphological steps. The problem is not visually believable morphological steps it is showing mechanistic feasibility of the genetic change. This is what he was trying to do with Weasel.
Neither are any of the individual domains that make up your favorite fusion protein.
1 Like
What do you think this means?
That conservation isn’t the kind of argument you think it is.
1 Like
Why do you think so?
If you understood your own argument you should be able to work that out for yourself.
2 Likes
Its Gpuccio’s and Durston’s argument. I would like your best counter if you have one.
You’re the one bringing it up all the time, and we’ve been over it’s many failings already over here.
3 Likes
What would be the FI of a newly emergent protein with a new function if it was caused by a single substitution mutation? FI would be really low, wouldn’t it? Now, take that same protein and watch it diverge over millions of years in descendants. FI goes up, does it not? Therefore, FI is a measure of how long a protein has been passed down, not the chances of it being found in the first place.
2 Likes
Your asserting victory here this is not like you normally. There is uncertainty in the measurements but no one has made the case there is enough to over come the problem the evidence of observed long preserved sequences bring to the hypothesis of natural selection and drift.
No, it goes down. The more sequences there are that can perform the function, then the bigger the “target space”, and then the less FI the protein has. So the more the homologous proteins diverge in sequence, the lower the FI becomes.
Therefore, FI is a measure of how long a protein has been passed down
Inversely proportional, but not directly, because purifying selection also affects the rate of change. You would expect an inverse correlation with age in general, sure.
What was wrong with all the other times you saw their silly arguments destroyed?