Give me a little time. I will look at it.
1 Like
Why not?
Thatâs not a fallacy.
The problem is that you are looking for THE sequence instead of a functional sequence. This is the Sharpshooter fallacy.
4 Likes
The claim that such systems can not evolve has not been tested.
The problems with these arguments have been demonstrated in this thread. It is the Sharpshooter fallacy.
Evolution doesnât care about complexity, only function.
That was based on incomplete gene annotation and needs to be backed up by actual sequence comparisons.
1 Like
Well, Iâm sure that has never been explained before to Bill. Now that it has been, we can rest assured he wonât be committing it again.
No, all you have demonstrated you donât understand what this fallacy is. It is drawing a target around a random set of holes. What you are in denial of is the any function will do fallacy 
Thatâs not a fallacy. You are making it up.
What I am saying is that the protein sequences we see are not the only possible functional protein sequences, which is true. ID supporters claim that evolution had to create the protein sequences we see, which is false. There are many other functional proteins that could have evolved.
2 Likes
There were articles that he had not read most were not what was newest available. Most explanations by evolutionary biologists assume evolution and look for precursors. Behe is coming at it as a skeptic of RMNS so the papers are going about the project very differently.
I have not seen an argument overturn the irreducibly complexity of the blood clotting system.
That is definetely not true. Do you know to which articles the lawyer refered?
2 Likes
Yes, I am. DNA jock labeled gpuccioâs work the TSS and that was also made up. You are copying what I consider a false analogy that gpuccio addressed very well in a specific opp
There were 58 articles. I will try to lift the relevant discussion as it took me an hour to find.
No one is challenging the irreducible nature of the blood clotting system. What we are challenging is the claim that these systems can not evolve. As another example, we can see the step by step evolution of the irreducibly complex mammalian middle ear in the fossil record. As we can see in the following diagram, the mammalian middle ear is irreducibly complex because if you remove any one of the three middle ear bones the system stops working.
In the reptilian middle ear, there is just one bone.
According to the ID argument, it would be nearly impossible to insert two irreducible parts to the middle ear. However, we can see in the fossil record that two jawbones evolved to fill those spots in the middle ear:
It isnât enough to say that something is irreducible. You also need to show why it couldnât evolve.
5 Likes
Depends what definition of IC you are discussing.
Letâs look at gpuccioâs response (from the article you cite)
gpuccio uses a sequence based measure of functional information, not a function based or fitness based measure. Thatâs where he makes the mistake. The method he uses can not tell us all of the possible beneficial functions that can occur, nor can it even tell us all possible protein sequences that can be used to tag misfolded proteins. All it can tell us is the pattern of non-detrimental mutations that have occurred in a subset of specific proteins after they first evolved. Thatâs the Sharpshooter fallacy.
4 Likes
A. I assume so.
Q. Okay. So thereâs at least fifty more
articles discussing the evolution of the immune
18
Q. A minimum of fifty, and youâre right
57 1
2 theyâre not all new. Some go back as early as
3 1971, and they go right through 2005, and in
4 fact thereâs a few that are dated 2006, which
5 I guess would indicate a forthcoming
6 publication.
10 system?
11 A. And midpoint I am, I certainly havenât had
12 time to look through these fifty articles, but I
13 still am unaware of any that address my point
14 that the immune system could arise or that
15 present in a detailed rigorous fashion a
16 scenario for the evolution by random mutation
17 and natural selection of the immune system.
He is the discussion it looks like Miller brought in 50 and Behe 8.
There is much more here. He is not drawing a target around the data he is comparing data from different organisms and looking at areas of the protein that did not mutate over deep evolutionary time. This shows that the sequences were critical in the application which is a very significant piece of data.
His argument is that proteins with over 500 bits of functional information as calculated by conserved proteins did not evolve by RMNS.
How could random mutation and natural selection find such a restrictive set of sequences that you are observing? If they came from this process I would expect very little correlation between the amino acid sequences. In certain cases this is what we see.
1 Like
When you limit yourself to one protein and the changes that occur in that protein in descendants then you are drawing a target around the data. This method can not, and does not, tell you all of the possible protein sequences that have the same function. It also canât tell you if this function was necessary for evolution to occur.
You havenât shown that they have to find a specific protein.
1 Like
This is complete non sense. You are not dawning a target around the data of shooter one. You are comparing shooter 1 to shooter 2 pattern and seeing if there is interesting data. Identical shot patterns would be very interesting.
When I look a prp8 data from mice and humans there is a big difference between observing 10% sequence comparison and 99% sequence comparison. These are objective comparisons and real empirical observations. Jock is full of it
The similarity is only 61% compared to yeast.
You are focusing on one single bullet hole and one shooter, the common ancestor of a shared gene. Using a comparison of related gene sequences can not tell you the number of protein sequences that can have the same function. All it can tell you is the changes you can make to that original sequence and still keep the same function.
3 Likes