Yet another case that falsifies the hypothesized correlation between the "FI" calculation and real functional information

For background, @Giltil has run away from the chance to test his hypothesis, which he repeatedly falsely presented as fact, that the functional information for antibody production is “largely” already present in the germ line genome. Clearly “FI” fails miserably in this case.

Continuing the discussion from Gil's testable ID hypothesis:

Even though Gil is blatantly cherry-picking nonrepresentative cases and misrepresenting them as examples, he actually picked one here that falsifies his hypothesis, because as I noted and documented in the original thread, multiple changes to other amino-acid residues (suppressor mutations) of the same protein rescue the very mutation Gil specified as an example.

An “FI” calculation would show the function-restoring suppressor mutations as reductions in “FI” despite their being more functional than the single mutations.

So Gil’s chosen “example” even falsifies his hypothesis!

Here’s another for this thread: the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) also known as MLA in humans and H-2 in mice for historical reasons. It is these genes that are typed for transplantations. Here is an introduction:
http://www.cryst.bbk.ac.uk/PPS2/projects/vun/MHC_master.htm

That a physician like @gpuccio failed to consider this case before claiming that his hypothesis applies to biology in general is mind-boggling.

This gene complex demolishes the notion that sequence conservation is a measure of functional information because its function is literally to be different between members of a species.

Thus, in this case, the correlation is the literally opposite of the correlation @Giltil is trying to sell as universal.

Please ask questions if you’re interested (I predict that Gil isn’t) and I’ll present data in response to illustrate this.

3 Likes

As an illustration of how function is mediated by these sequence differences, most people would intuitively predict that they would reject a skin transplant from another species (xenotransplant) more strongly than one from an unrelated human (allotransplant). In fact, the opposite is true.

3 Likes