Can you list these numerous flaws that, according to you, destroy gpuccio’s argument?
I, for myself, find it very elegant, clever and compelling. The very opposite of nonsense.
What would be the point of that when we are both members of this forum, and we both participated in those threads. I don’t see why I have to sit here and copy-paste the contents of posts you yourself can go and read all over again. And it would be off topic for this thread anyway.
1 Like
It would be more like parachuting with a very clear aim into various spots gaining a reasonable statistical sample. This in part depends on your working assumptions. We see lots of evidence of constraint which points to design.
What evidence of constrain points to design? Be specific.
1 Like
We all agree there is a certain amount of constraint, but it’s impossible for you to conclude you have a “reasonable statistical sample” by only sampling the narrow band of known functional sequences. By definition you don’t know about all the sequences we don’t know about. The data we do have about functional sequence space suggests that what is found in extant life is only a tiny fraction of functional sequence space.
1 Like
Regarding your quite insulting characterization of gpuccio’s argument, may I recall you that he has been invited, over a year ago, and with all the honors due to his rank, to present his argument on this blog. That a thread for scholars has even been devoted to him. And that the most eminent scholars of this community have exchanged several hundreds post with him, trying to understand and refute his argument. Now, do you really think that gpuccio would have sparked so much interest on this blog if what he says was pure nonsense?
Pulverizing Creationist nonsense is provided as a public service by the scientific scholars here. 
1 Like
The emotional impact of my characterization is not a relevant fact. Nice people can be wrong, and assholes can be right.
Eminent scholars responded. Were they renowned, distinguished, world-class too, and came from highly prestigious institutions, and had published voluminously over decades on advanced and technical topics?
Chortle.
It doesn’t matter how much space and how many people bothered to respond to it. That doesn’t give it merit. Yes, it was nonsense, and I was able to explain why it was nonsense. No, I’m not going to copy-paste my responses again. No, I won’t stop calling it nonsense. No, how much of an asshole I am and how biased I might be are not relevant facts. And no, this rhetorical conjunction of the appeal to authority and attention fallacies does not translate into a valid rebuttal. I’m a boogeyman, and I’m right. Get over it.
1 Like
Who are the authorities?
It’s a common argument against engaging with creationists that they only gain prestige from interacting with real scientists. Your post offers support for that argument. Still, let us hope that few people think the way you do. Certainly arguing with gpuccio is not intended as endorsement of his claims or even as acknowledgment that his claims make sense.
1 Like
Statistics is all about making estimates with limited data. Population size can be infinite in statistical inferences. There is an error based on a confidence level in the measurement depending on sample size.
We also have a large sample of constrained sequences. We also have sequences that change constraint level with a change in animal types. We also have sequences that have no new fixed substitutions at the class level (mammals) despite theoretically million of generations.
Why do you engage at all with creationists?
What are your large sample of constrained sequences? Be specific.
You made my point for me. Guess you didn’t read my post.
Showing lurkers the danger of Creationist scientific illiteracy in the voting populace is a great reason.
1 Like
Are you really not aware that some real scientists disagree with you, or are you intentionally using a No True Scottsman fallacy?
2 Likes
They just don’t do it for scientific reasons, only religious ones.
1 Like
The triumph of hope over experience.
Which real scientists did you have in mind? Now, scientists are people who do science. I have never seen a creationist paper that was real science, so I assume that the people who wrote them are not real scientists. It may be that they do science in other contexts and have written real scientific papers on other subjects; in that case they were real scientists on those occasions, but not when doing the creationist papers.
I’m assuming that you aren’t a scientist yourself. Is that correct?
3 Likes
