Evolutionary Genomics Programmer Position Available

| 75 Comments

The Human and Comparative Genomics laboratory at the Biodesign Institute is looking for a Software Application Associate who will work in a collaborative environment to design, construct, test, document and maintain software packages. Typical projects involve implementing high performance algorithms for the statistical analysis of large genomic datasets for studying questions related to evolution and population genetics.

To apply visit http://links.asu.edu/job19991BR or search for ID 19991BR at https://cfo.asu.edu/hr-applicant.

If you have any questions about the opening, please email [Enable javascript to see this email address.] and visit http://cartwrig.ht/. ESSENTIAL DUTIES: Develops and documents requirements of software applications. Participates in on-the-job and formal training sessions concerning the design, writing, and testing of software application programs. Participates in and/or independently performs the design, testing, and documentation phases of programs. Translates predetermined logic into appropriate programming language and operating systems. Utilizes standard reference, resource, and/or procedural materials to resolve problems. Integrates multiple tools into a single, user-friendly software package, as well as providing support for the software. Operates on-line terminals and related computing equipment as required.

MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS: Bachelor’s degree in Statistics, Mathematics, Computer Science or related field AND two years of experience in software application development, including writing computer code in one or more programming languages; OR, any equivalent combination of experience and/or education from which comparable knowledge, skills and abilities have been achieved.

DESIRED QUALIFICATIONS: Experience in translating software prototypes from Perl, Python, Java, etc into C/C++ preferred. Experience with JavaScript. Experience with databases query tools including, but not limited to, SQL, as well as programming languages including, but not limited to, C++ python, XML, HTML.

DEPARTMENT STATEMENT: The Biodesign Institute addresses today’s critical global challenges in healthcare, sustainability, and security by developing solutions inspired from natural systems and translating those solutions into commercially viable products and clinical practices. The Cartwright Lab is based in the Human and Comparative Genomics Laboratory in the Biodesign Institute at Arizona State University. Our research focuses on various topics in the field of computational evolutionary genetics. We develop methods and software to analyze large genomic datasets and “big data”. The majority of our research is related to the detection and analysis of mutations and variation from next-generation sequencing. We are species-neutral and work on taxa across the tree of life. Recent work involves humans, cancer, bonobos, ciliates, maize, Plasmodium, Leishmania, E. coli, archaea, Solanaceae, strawberries, and Anolis.

75 Comments

I guess you’ll have to hire one of the regular commenters at Uncommon Descent. Because, as they regularly assure us, they are the hard-nosed folks who know how to deal quantitatively with biology, while we biologists refuse to do any quantitative analysis of biology at all. We just endlessly tell tall tales and spend our time talking about what Darwin did and said, and saying how great Darwin was and how everything he did was free of error.

So there is your only possible pool of candidates, since no biologist has ever used a computer.

Joe Felsenstein said:

So there is your only possible pool of candidates, since no biologist has ever used a computer.

It’s hard to forget the total confusion a couple of years ago among the denizens of UD in trying to get even Dawkins’ little Weasel program to work. It provided a few good chuckles and eye-rolls.

Well if you require applicants to sign a statement of faith, maybe you can get some tax breaks. Maybe something like:

“I believe in the holy law of evolution and the science for which it stands. One nation, under Canada, with technology and progress for all.”

Well you can work on that, but you get the idea.

Joe Felsenstein said:

I guess you’ll have to hire one of the regular commenters at Uncommon Descent. Because, as they regularly assure us, they are the hard-nosed folks who know how to deal quantitatively with biology, while we biologists refuse to do any quantitative analysis of biology at all. We just endlessly tell tall tales and spend our time talking about what Darwin did and said, and saying how great Darwin was and how everything he did was free of error.

So there is your only possible pool of candidates, since no biologist has ever used a computer.

As a biologist, would you answer me the following questions with empirical support:

How did genomes evolve? How do stochastic mutations are able to generate long strands with millions of correctly ordered nucleotides along with the inseparable proteic machinery that replicates, unzip, translate and repair the genome, not to mention the networks of several classes of RNAs and ncRNAs that play many crucial roles?

Thank you in advance.

Wallace Barbosa de Souza said:

How do stochastic mutations are able to generate long strands with millions of correctly ordered nucleotides along with the inseparable proteic machinery that replicates, unzip, translate and repair the genome, not to mention the networks of several classes of RNAs and ncRNAs that play many crucial roles?

Thank you in advance.

Wallace Barbosa de Souza said:

How do stochastic mutations are able to generate long strands with millions of correctly ordered nucleotides along with the inseparable proteic machinery that replicates, unzip, translate and repair the genome, not to mention the networks of several classes of RNAs and ncRNAs that play many crucial roles?

Thank you in advance.

Just out of curiosity; could you explain what you mean by “stochastic mutations” and why you think atoms and molecules cannot evolve into complex structures?

I suspect you have some specific calculation in mind.

Mike Elzinga said:

Wallace Barbosa de Souza said:

How do stochastic mutations are able to generate long strands with millions of correctly ordered nucleotides along with the inseparable proteic machinery that replicates, unzip, translate and repair the genome, not to mention the networks of several classes of RNAs and ncRNAs that play many crucial roles?

Thank you in advance.

Just out of curiosity; could you explain what you mean by “stochastic mutations” and why you think atoms and molecules cannot evolve into complex structures?

I suspect you have some specific calculation in mind.

No calculation, but the fact is that mutations aren’t usually “guided”. They mostly occur randomly. That makes me wonder how such process could account for the origin of relevant functional information.

Wallace Barbosa de Souza said:

No calculation, but the fact is that mutations aren’t usually “guided”. They mostly occur randomly. That makes me wonder how such process could account for the origin of relevant functional information.

Well, when most of the nonfunctional or dysfunctional information is pretty much self-eliminated from the gene pool, what you’re left with will function well enough to work.

Give us thousands of “stochastic” mutations, run them through the natural selection grinder, and what comes out is, by definition, functional.

Wallace Barbosa de Souza said:

No calculation, but the fact is that mutations aren’t usually “guided”. They mostly occur randomly. That makes me wonder how such process could account for the origin of relevant functional information.

Are you talking about “genetic entropy?”

What is the physical barrier beyond which complex systems exhibiting complex behaviors are no longer possible?

We know they exist; they are all around us. Why are they improbable if not impossible?

Re “How do stochastic mutations are able to generate long strands with millions of correctly ordered nucleotides”

Mutations don’t create “correctly ordered” anything. The combination of mutation and differential reproductive success (commonly called “natural selection”) generates things that work. There is no “correct”. There is “works well enough for now” and “doesn’t work now”.

Wallace Barbosa de Souza said: That makes me wonder how such process could account for the origin of relevant functional information.

Another question: Just what is “relevant functional information?”

It was a drive-by IDioting.

All it took him was one good question to completely disprove evolution. No point in further discussion.

Just Bob said:

It was a drive-by IDioting.

All it took him was one good question to completely disprove evolution. No point in further discussion.

Even though the answer was only two words (natural selection) and he hasn’t addressed that? Well, I guess he can just declare victory and run away, just like every other creationist.

Wallace Barbosa de Souza said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Wallace Barbosa de Souza said:

How do stochastic mutations are able to generate long strands with millions of correctly ordered nucleotides along with the inseparable proteic machinery that replicates, unzip, translate and repair the genome, not to mention the networks of several classes of RNAs and ncRNAs that play many crucial roles?

Thank you in advance.

Just out of curiosity; could you explain what you mean by “stochastic mutations” and why you think atoms and molecules cannot evolve into complex structures?

I suspect you have some specific calculation in mind.

No calculation, but the fact is that mutations aren’t usually “guided”. They mostly occur randomly. That makes me wonder how such process could account for the origin of relevant functional information.

I am not a scientist, so excuse my layman-type language.

The adaptive immune system works by random variation plus selection.

When the adaptive immune system detects an invader, it produces random variations of antibodies, and discards those which don’t attack the invader. Eventually, there is produced a funtioning antibody.

On the other hand, has anyone suggested any account for the appearance of functional information in the pattern shown in taxonomy, biogeography, etc., which does not include common descent with modification?

On the other hand, has anyone suggested any account for the appearance of functional information in the pattern shown in taxonomy, biogeography, etc., which does not include common descent with modification?

POOF!!!111111!!!!eleven!!!

Mike Elzinga said:

Are you talking about “genetic entropy?”

What is the physical barrier beyond which complex systems exhibiting complex behaviors are no longer possible?

We know they exist; they are all around us. Why are they improbable if not impossible?

No, I’m not talking about an upper limit to complexity. I’m just pondering about the claim that mutations can account for the origin and organization of every single biological feature, from basic components to entire hierarchically-organized molecular networks.

Biomedical, genomic and system biology research are all showing countless results that follow when mutations occur, with many being very detrimental (fortunately, most mutations are “silenced” either by buffering or by any other intelligent mechanism present in the organisms that combat the dangerous results thereof), which puts the abovementioned claim at odds with current abundant evidence.

How could mutations build these networks with thousands of genes, proteins, metabolites, TF’s, epigenetic factors and all the other basic components that work together to convey emergent properties deemed essential to survival? Research keep showing over again that mutations, if anything, disrupt these orchestrated systems, which is a compelling sign of irreducibility.

Wallace Barbosa de Souza said:

How could mutations build these networks with thousands of genes, proteins, metabolites, TF’s, epigenetic factors and all the other basic components that work together to convey emergent properties deemed essential to survival? Research keep showing over again that mutations, if anything, disrupt these orchestrated systems, which is a compelling sign of irreducibility.

Apparently you have never learned or understood the concept of natural selection.

It is taught in good high school biology classes. Go look it up.

Mike Elzinga said:

Wallace Barbosa de Souza said:

How could mutations build these networks with thousands of genes, proteins, metabolites, TF’s, epigenetic factors and all the other basic components that work together to convey emergent properties deemed essential to survival? Research keep showing over again that mutations, if anything, disrupt these orchestrated systems, which is a compelling sign of irreducibility.

Apparently you have never learned or understood the concept of natural selection.

It is taught in good high school biology classes. Go look it up.

And, by the way, you should take time to learn about the chemistry and physics of biomolecules instead of just speculating on “reports” you have read but don’t comprehend. Your “speculations” reveal you have no clue what you are talking about.

Mike Elzinga said:

Wallace Barbosa de Souza said:

How could mutations build these networks with thousands of genes, proteins, metabolites, TF’s, epigenetic factors and all the other basic components that work together to convey emergent properties deemed essential to survival? Research keep showing over again that mutations, if anything, disrupt these orchestrated systems, which is a compelling sign of irreducibility.

Apparently you have never learned or understood the concept of natural selection.

It is taught in good high school biology classes. Go look it up.

Natural selection? You mean the tautological proposition that cannot make a single correct prediction?

“And, by the way, you should take time to learn about the chemistry and physics of biomolecules”

What do you think chemistry and physics can show in terms of biological networks and information?

Wallace Barbosa de Souza said:

What do you think chemistry and physics can show in terms of biological networks and information?

A hell of a lot more than you are aware. You need to go back to high school and start over.

Wallace Barbosa de Souza said:

Natural selection? You mean the tautological proposition that cannot make a single correct prediction?

“And, by the way, you should take time to learn about the chemistry and physics of biomolecules”

What do you think chemistry and physics can show in terms of biological networks and information?

How is natural selection tautological? Please explain your reasoning.

Michael Fugate said:

How is natural selection tautological? Please explain your reasoning.

That’s a conclusion reached by many scientific thinkers like Karl Popper (curiously, the father of scientific falsifiability) Tam Hunt, who wrote:

“Natural selection has been criticized as a tautology. This would be a major problem for evolutionary biology, if true, because tautological statements can’t be falsified and, therefore, can’t be scientific. There is merit to this critique insofar as the theory of natural selection is indeed generally described in a tautological manner. However, natural selection can be described non-tautologically if we’re careful. Natural selection should be defined as the theory that attempts to predict and retrodict evolutionary change through environmental forces acting upon organisms. However, this re-framing comes at a cost: it reveals, based on our current knowledge of evolutionary forces, the lack of ability to make accurate predictions about expected changes except in the most simple of circumstances.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art[…]/PMC4594354/

“A hell of a lot more than you are aware. You need to go back to high school and start over.”

What about presenting decent replies substantiated by data and scientific literature, instead of childish void words?

Wallace Barbosa de Souza said:

Michael Fugate said:

How is natural selection tautological? Please explain your reasoning.

That’s a conclusion reached by many scientific thinkers like Karl Popper (curiously, the father of scientific falsifiability) Tam Hunt, who wrote:

“Natural selection has been criticized as a tautology. This would be a major problem for evolutionary biology, if true, because tautological statements can’t be falsified and, therefore, can’t be scientific. There is merit to this critique insofar as the theory of natural selection is indeed generally described in a tautological manner. However, natural selection can be described non-tautologically if we’re careful. Natural selection should be defined as the theory that attempts to predict and retrodict evolutionary change through environmental forces acting upon organisms. However, this re-framing comes at a cost: it reveals, based on our current knowledge of evolutionary forces, the lack of ability to make accurate predictions about expected changes except in the most simple of circumstances.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art[…]/PMC4594354/

“A hell of a lot more than you are aware. You need to go back to high school and start over.”

What about presenting decent replies substantiated by data and scientific literature, instead of childish void words?

http://ncse.com/cej/6/2/what-did-ka[…]ay-evolution What Did Karl Popper Really Say About Evolution by Frank J. Sonleitner Creation/Evolution, Issue 18 (Summer 1986)

Wallace Barbosa de Souza said:

Michael Fugate said:

How is natural selection tautological? Please explain your reasoning.

That’s a conclusion reached by many scientific thinkers like Karl Popper (curiously, the father of scientific falsifiability) Tam Hunt, who wrote:

“Natural selection has been criticized as a tautology. This would be a major problem for evolutionary biology, if true, because tautological statements can’t be falsified and, therefore, can’t be scientific. There is merit to this critique insofar as the theory of natural selection is indeed generally described in a tautological manner. However, natural selection can be described non-tautologically if we’re careful. Natural selection should be defined as the theory that attempts to predict and retrodict evolutionary change through environmental forces acting upon organisms. However, this re-framing comes at a cost: it reveals, based on our current knowledge of evolutionary forces, the lack of ability to make accurate predictions about expected changes except in the most simple of circumstances.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art[…]/PMC4594354/

“A hell of a lot more than you are aware. You need to go back to high school and start over.”

What about presenting decent replies substantiated by data and scientific literature, instead of childish void words?

So you yourself don’t understand if it is or isn’t a tautology - you are only using hearsay that it might be?

I asked for your reasoning, not someone else’s. Lots of “ifs” in Hunt’s statement.

Not to mention - I could find many, many philosophers - not to mention biologists - who say it isn’t a tautology. Arguments from authority - meh…

Michael Fugate said:

Wallace Barbosa de Souza said:

Michael Fugate said:

How is natural selection tautological? Please explain your reasoning.

That’s a conclusion reached by many scientific thinkers like Karl Popper (curiously, the father of scientific falsifiability) Tam Hunt, who wrote:

“Natural selection has been criticized as a tautology. This would be a major problem for evolutionary biology, if true, because tautological statements can’t be falsified and, therefore, can’t be scientific. There is merit to this critique insofar as the theory of natural selection is indeed generally described in a tautological manner. However, natural selection can be described non-tautologically if we’re careful. Natural selection should be defined as the theory that attempts to predict and retrodict evolutionary change through environmental forces acting upon organisms. However, this re-framing comes at a cost: it reveals, based on our current knowledge of evolutionary forces, the lack of ability to make accurate predictions about expected changes except in the most simple of circumstances.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art[…]/PMC4594354/

“A hell of a lot more than you are aware. You need to go back to high school and start over.”

What about presenting decent replies substantiated by data and scientific literature, instead of childish void words?

So you yourself don’t understand if it is or isn’t a tautology - you are only using hearsay that it might be?

I asked for your reasoning, not someone else’s. Lots of “ifs” in Hunt’s statement.

So, are you telling me that you DO understand natural selection? Then hurry and go tell the scientists, because they have no idea.

Still awaiting explanations about mutations bringing about biological systems.

TomS said:

Wallace Barbosa de Souza said:

Michael Fugate said:

How is natural selection tautological? Please explain your reasoning.

That’s a conclusion reached by many scientific thinkers like Karl Popper (curiously, the father of scientific falsifiability) Tam Hunt, who wrote:

“Natural selection has been criticized as a tautology. This would be a major problem for evolutionary biology, if true, because tautological statements can’t be falsified and, therefore, can’t be scientific. There is merit to this critique insofar as the theory of natural selection is indeed generally described in a tautological manner. However, natural selection can be described non-tautologically if we’re careful. Natural selection should be defined as the theory that attempts to predict and retrodict evolutionary change through environmental forces acting upon organisms. However, this re-framing comes at a cost: it reveals, based on our current knowledge of evolutionary forces, the lack of ability to make accurate predictions about expected changes except in the most simple of circumstances.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art[…]/PMC4594354/

“A hell of a lot more than you are aware. You need to go back to high school and start over.”

What about presenting decent replies substantiated by data and scientific literature, instead of childish void words?

http://ncse.com/cej/6/2/what-did-ka[…]ay-evolution What Did Karl Popper Really Say About Evolution by Frank J. Sonleitner Creation/Evolution, Issue 18 (Summer 1986)

“Early in his career, the philosopher Karl Popper (yes, cited by F and P-P) called evolution via natural selection “almost a tautology” and “not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program.” Attacked for these criticisms, Popper took them back. But when I interviewed him in 1992, he blurted out that he still found Darwin’s theory dissatisfying. “One ought to look for alternatives!” Popper exclaimed, banging his kitchen table.” http://blogs.scientificamerican.com[…]f-evolution/

Can’t answer a simple question Wallace? - thought not.

Notice how your body Tam, says that it is possible to predict outcomes. So of course it is not a tautology. You are not even smart enough to read your own citation.

buddy - not body - damn spellcheck.….

Michael Fugate said:

Can’t answer a simple question Wallace? - thought not.

Notice how your body Tam, says that it is possible to predict outcomes. So of course it is not a tautology. You are not even smart enough to read your own citation.

He’s saying clearly that when natural selection has its tautology undone, it showss its lack of predictability. In order to “predict” and “explain” away anything in biology, NS needs to receive tons of “patchs”, adjusts, ad hoc exceptions, in short, it need to turn into a tautology, because it cannot predict a thing.

TomS said:

fnxtr said:

So I guess Ohm’s Law is a tautology, too. :-/

I don’t know what creationists who cite Popper have to say about Newton’s and Ohm’s laws, etc.

They’ll say whatever proves evolution is impossible. And in their fantasy physics, that’s everything because, you know, evolution CAN’T be true. So they’ll find something in any law of physics to prove what they know has to be true because [insert Bible verse here].

Just Bob said:

TomS said:

fnxtr said:

So I guess Ohm’s Law is a tautology, too. :-/

I don’t know what creationists who cite Popper have to say about Newton’s and Ohm’s laws, etc.

They’ll say whatever proves evolution is impossible. And in their fantasy physics, that’s everything because, you know, evolution CAN’T be true. So they’ll find something in any law of physics to prove what they know has to be true because [insert Bible verse here].

That makes me wonder about The Law of Conservation of Designeroid Information, or the Laws of Creationist Thermodynamics, or the Universal Probability Bound. Are they tautologies?

TomS said:

That makes me wonder about The Law of Conservation of Designeroid Information, or the Laws of Creationist Thermodynamics, or the Universal Probability Bound. Are they tautologies?

Obviously, they’re proponetists of all things Cdesign.

Wow, back here after a month and still haven’t seen a decent, mature reply by evolution supporters.. Ad hominem, group mockery, more ad hominem and irrelevant talk, and no solid argument to support Darwinian tautology!

The real predictive nature of evolution is better understood in the words of Philip Skell, who wrote:

“Further, Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive – except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed – except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.” (The Scientist 2006)

Is this laughable pseudoscience that you guys are trying to tout as the basis of biology? LOL

Change in alleles.. Change in alleles.… An old conception held by minds that lived a century ago, certainly that babbling explains the origin and organization of “modern” organisms, the complexity of which defies reason..

How does changes in allele frequencies explain the origin of large metabolic pathways, PPI modules and networks, orchestrated behavior of gene cascades, cell compartmentalisation, differentiation, molecular complexes like spliceosomes, organs like hearts and brains, etc.. How in the world does that old conjecture explain the evolution of these things AT MOLECULAR LEVEL?

That’s the challenge, I’ll only reply decent replies by actual adults.. Kids are gonna be utterly ignored

Change in alleles.. Change in alleles.… An old conception held by minds that lived a century ago, certainly that babbling explains the origin and organization of “modern” organisms, the complexity of which defies reason..

Mass-energy equivalence… Mass-energy equivalence … An old conception held by minds that lived a century ago, certainly that babbling explains the origin and organization of “modern” nuclear bombs, the complexity of which defies reason…

Just Bob said:

“So Wallace, what’s your solution? Magic?”

Nope, intelligent design. Magic is a term that better fits the idea tha random mutations generate circulatory systems and stem cell regulatory networks.

“Performed by whom?”

Childish question, anyway, ID science doesn’t advocate any particular kind of designer, we only point out the obvious, that is, the fact that life is designed.

“When?”

Sorry but I don’t know (and I won’t make up chronological timelines like Darwinians do), and it’s irrelevant to evaluate the detection of design.

“And wait for it… it’s coming… it’s almost here! Here it is: Can you name something that is NOT ‘designed’? If you can, please explain how you know it isn’t ‘designed’. Better yet (and more scientifically) explain how to objectively TEST whether something is designed or not.

Ah, finally a decent question! To summarize, life is designed because it has all the signs of designed/engineered complex systems, including:

-Information storage, processing and flow;

-Emergent properties responsible for every function;

-Organized non-random structures including intelligent compartmentalisation;

-Modulation of molecules;

-Networks and cascades of finely regulated molecules (genes, proteins, enzymes, transcription factors, epigenetic factors, microRNAs, etc), strongly resembling internet network.

The very present of motors like ATPase and flagellum are sufficient evidence for ID.

Wallace Barbosa de Souza said:

Wow, back here after a month and still haven’t seen a decent, mature reply by evolution supporters…

Wow; in a month most students can learn several important concepts in science.

Several such concepts have been presented on this very thread, but you apparently didn’t notice. Why is that? Just trolling are you?

Wallace Barbosa de Souza said:

-Information storage, processing and flow;

-Emergent properties responsible for every function;

-Organized non-random structures including intelligent compartmentalisation;

-Modulation of molecules;

-Networks and cascades of finely regulated molecules (genes, proteins, enzymes, transcription factors, epigenetic factors, microRNAs, etc), strongly resembling internet network.

The very present of motors like ATPase and flagellum are sufficient evidence for ID.

What happens to those “motors” and “functions” when the temperature drops below about 60 degrees Fahrenheit? Can you explain what happens and why?

I suspect you don’t have a clue about the significance of temperature dependence. I predict that all you can supply is a silly response that has nothing to do with anything.

Wallace Barbosa de Souza said:

Just Bob said:

“So Wallace, what’s your solution? Magic?”

Nope, intelligent design. Magic is a term that better fits the idea tha random mutations generate circulatory systems and stem cell regulatory networks.

“Performed by whom?”

Childish question, anyway, ID science doesn’t advocate any particular kind of designer, we only point out the obvious, that is, the fact that life is designed.

“When?”

Sorry but I don’t know (and I won’t make up chronological timelines like Darwinians do), and it’s irrelevant to evaluate the detection of design.

“And wait for it… it’s coming… it’s almost here! Here it is: Can you name something that is NOT ‘designed’? If you can, please explain how you know it isn’t ‘designed’. Better yet (and more scientifically) explain how to objectively TEST whether something is designed or not.

Ah, finally a decent question! To summarize, life is designed because it has all the signs of designed/engineered complex systems, including:

-Information storage, processing and flow;

-Emergent properties responsible for every function;

-Organized non-random structures including intelligent compartmentalisation;

-Modulation of molecules;

-Networks and cascades of finely regulated molecules (genes, proteins, enzymes, transcription factors, epigenetic factors, microRNAs, etc), strongly resembling internet network.

The very present of motors like ATPase and flagellum are sufficient evidence for ID.

What horseshit.

ID IS magic. It depends on the presupposed existence of a magical designer, one that works by unknown means, through unknown pathways, and with completely mysterious and unnecessary motivations and powers. One postulates the action of a divine actor in a simple-minded pseudoscientific parody of rationality. It’s classically unsupported pseudoscience: no clear definitions, no testable evidence, no experiment, nothing at all but denial, incredulity, baseless claims and unsupported assertions.

All the IDiots have is insistence that they are right in their so-called inferences. Not a single one of Barby’s “signs” amounts to anything other than a god-of-the-gaps argument, allegedly of worth because… well, because Barby says so. Nothing more. You can see this clearly when he claims that “The very present [sic] of motors like ATPase and flagellum are sufficient evidence for ID.” There is no reason whatsoever to suppose that ATPase and flagella did not evolve, much less that they were created ex nihilo by some purported supernatural engineer.

Wallace Barbosa de Souza said:

Wow, back here after a month and still haven’t seen a decent, mature reply by evolution supporters.. Ad hominem, group mockery, more ad hominem and irrelevant talk, and no solid argument to support Darwinian tautology!

The real predictive nature of evolution is better understood in the words of Philip Skell, who wrote:

“Further, Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive – except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed – except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.” (The Scientist 2006)

Is this laughable pseudoscience that you guys are trying to tout as the basis of biology? LOL

Change in alleles.. Change in alleles.… An old conception held by minds that lived a century ago, certainly that babbling explains the origin and organization of “modern” organisms, the complexity of which defies reason..

How does changes in allele frequencies explain the origin of large metabolic pathways, PPI modules and networks, orchestrated behavior of gene cascades, cell compartmentalisation, differentiation, molecular complexes like spliceosomes, organs like hearts and brains, etc.. How in the world does that old conjecture explain the evolution of these things AT MOLECULAR LEVEL?

That’s the challenge, I’ll only reply decent replies by actual adults.. Kids are gonna be utterly ignored

Really? So you answered my questions about selection? No? Then stop with the crocodile tears already. You get treated the way you deserve around here.

Funny you should bring up spliceosomes. Here is a recent article on spliceosome evolution:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art[…]/PMC2650416/

As usual, gene duplication, mutation and natural selection played major roles in the evolution of modern spliceosomes. This is how things evolve at the MOLECULAR LEVEL. If you want to claim that they could not have evolved, you are going to have to deal with the evidence that they in fact did just that. Incredulity is not an argument.

Still waiting cream puff. You still haven’t answered my questions about natural selection. If you had, you would realize that you were totally and completely wrong when you claimed that it made no predictions. And we know a great deal about evolution at the molecular level. Apparently you are not familiar with the scientific literature. Are you just a kid, coming here to shoot spit wads at the grownups? You can’t handle the evidence. When you are ready to confront reality, let us know.

While we are waiting for your response, her is an article about the evolution of the heart from bacteria to man:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/[…]002/abstract

And while we are at it, here is a review article on vertebrate brain evolution:

http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/conte[…]2/4/743.full

Wallace, it took you a whole month to find a list of creationist clichés? I am sure I could have found them in 30 minutes or less.

So is natural selection still a tautology, or have you given up on that particular argument? Can you list all the different ways a mutation can arise? Can you list all the ways a protein can be influenced by it primary, secondary and tertiary sequences, by the internal environment, by the external environment?

Is everything designed? or only some things? I can find an organized structural pattern in a rock or in soil, are they designed? Water has emergent properties, is it designed? I can find information in anything with a pattern.

Who do you think the “designer” is? What do you base that on? Given who the designer is how might that influence what it does? Would different designers do things differently?

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Reed A. Cartwright published on January 27, 2016 1:28 PM.

Judge rules in favor of Ark Park was the previous entry in this blog.

Rainbow is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter