Ultimtately, I think we:re talking about different things. From mu perspective, you're making a very different statement here than what you made above. The earl

Ultimtately, I think we:re talking about different things. From mu perspective, you're making a very different statement here than what you made above. The earlier comment alluded that the conformational dynamics seen in Cryo-EM structures may not be biologically relevant. That is the claim I contested, and very different than the one you make in this comment (which I mostly agree with) which is that EM only captures a small amount of biologically relevant states. >"Thermodynamically, the range of possible conformations, once folded, is only so big," <- this is not even remotely true, especially in the context of actual biology. There's a bit of a shoreline paradox at work here. The range is quite small for the folded structure, vs the total possible sampling space. It seems now that you're talking about things at a much finer resolution (which is fine), which didn't seem relevant to your initial suggestion that there's debate around whether EM models are biologically relevant.