“Signature in the Cell”
As this is live blogging, please excuse any spelling or grammar mistakes, they will be corrected later. Also keep in mind that this will provide short explanations / summaries of what is currently happening and will not be fully detailed. Please note that the questions and answers are paraphrased by me and are not the full thing or verbatim.
19.35
20.07
20.11
20.16
20.19
20.21
20.24
20.26
20.33
20.35
20.39
20.41
20.45
20.51
20.54
20.57
21.00
21.03
21.06
21.09
21.14
21.17
21.23
21.24
21.30
21.36
21.43
21.47
21.54
21.54
September 28th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
I don’t think you need to compete with ERV. He’s going to win the interwebz 4chan crowd but not anybody else.
September 28th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
I remember from his book the Doug Axe reference. Axe calculated from his mutagenesis experiments that a protein of 150 AAs in length has a functional:non-functional ratio of 1 in 10^74.
September 29th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Ben:
We’re not wanting to compete with ERV, but we think that it is a good measure to keep a good record available for those who weren’t able to show up.
October 3rd, 2009 at 2:18 pm
So far the it seems that most of the criticisms of Meyers presentation are from those who obviously haven’t read the book, and thus felt they could oversimplify Meyers presentation to get a sense of what he’s arguing. Take this one for example:
“The problem with that analogy is the problem that seems to underlie all of these improbability claims. You don’t need a specific dinosaur, you need any dinosaur.”
This is supposed to counter the argument from improbability used by Meyer with respect to proteins, but seeing that one person has already brought up the work of Axe that Meyer cites in his book, I think most of you can already see the flaw.
In the end, criticisms so far all come right down to the whole argument of… “Yeah this is an improbable feature with respect to undirected processes but there was never a goal to produce that feature in the first place so HAH!”