Thursday, April 26, 2007

ID vs ERVs-- Part Nine: IDC Article Etiological Agent in Acute Gumbititis Outbreaks

WARNING: Reading the following post might cause the reader to suffer from acute Gumbititis
(herein referred to as Creationist Induced Gumbititis, CIG).

Much like the 1918 Influenza pandemic (which curiously killed more young, previously healthy individuals, rather than the very young and very old), current CIG outbreaks have victimized an unexpected population. Normally Creationist Claims are targeted towards evolution naive or evolution apathetic populations. The recent outbreak is clearly targeted towards moderate--> experienced Science Defenders in the hopes CIG will be severe enough to cause brain aneurysms. According to the following graph, the only people immune to CIG are non-English speaking, Creationist naive, non-humans.
(note: graph recreated from original data to prevent copyright confusion)

Do NOT read this post in a public area (airplane, library, coffee shop, etc). If you exhibit warning signs of CIG (see below), explaining why you are acting like a Gumby can pass CIG to surrounding individuals.

Please tell your family and friends if you decide to read this post so they can be on the lookout for CIG warning signs.
Mild symptoms:

  • Insistence upon wearing tiny spectacles (even on top of prescription glasses)
  • Insistence upon wearing suspenders and/or sweater vests (note-- sweater vests DO have white shirts underneath. Wearing a sweater vest alone is just sign of bad fashion)
  • Constantly speaking at a socially inappropriate volume
  • Stealing handkerchiefs for use as head wear

Severe symptoms:
  • Sudden appearance of a moostache. Even possible with female victims. Though a sign of severe CIG, easily reversible with proper treatment, as moostache is normally glued on.
  • Fixating on phrases and repeating them ad nauseum (also at socially inappropriate volume)
  • Uncontrollable smashing of personal belongings, others belongings, and nearby people.
  • Will not stop screaming "MY BRAIN HURTS!" Cannot be consoled without anesthesia.
Readers, you have been warned.

So, what is Mr. Black Holes official, damning philosophical argument against Evilutionism?
However, the selfish DNA narrative is not falsifiable in that there is no way to test any statement of DNA selfishness such that the statement could be categorically refuted. Therefore it cannot be a hypothesis. Indeed, the opposite is the case. No matter what data are considered as evidence of RE functionality, the selfish DNA narrative allows the generation of higher-order stories to transmogrify functional roles into genomic selfishness. This irrefutable aspect of the narrative is what permits the idea to prevail in scientific discourse.
Sometimes repetitive elements, ERVs, transposable elements are coopted by the host cell for use. Sometimes they arent. Sometimes birds use wings to fly. Sometimes birds with wings dont fly. That means Evilution is un-falsifiable, thus a scientifically and philosophically unsound theory. A CREATIONIST just told EVILUTIONISTS that their theory is unfalsifiable.



Im okay.

Creationists, who have no idea what ERVs are until I bring them up in conversation (following the insertion of ERVs in genomes is a neat way to connect-the-dots for common descent) ad hoc insist that ERVs are evidence for common design.

Creationists, who have no idea that ERVs mutate differently after 'splits' in the phylogenetic tree until I bring it up in conversation, ad hoc insist that mutations are the result of The Fall.

So, DNA is perfect because it was Designed. Every base pair, every piece of 'junk' is sacred. But any time we do find junk, its because of Original Sin.


More on Evilutions 'Un-Falisfiability' to come.


Tyler DiPietro said...

Now, I'll admit I just woke up not too long ago (day off, yay!), but I'm having a very hard time parsing the paragraph you quoted from "Mr. Black Hole". I would assume that the "selfish DNA narrative" is the Dawkinsian gene-selectionist view.

I think that first it should be noted that not all biologist are gene-selectionists. Gould, Lewontin, Eldredge and others are well-known opponents of that view. Second, the gene-selectionist view only holds that differential reproductive success works at the level of genes rather than, for instance, organisms or groups. I don't see how parts of the genome that exhibit non-functional sequences, functional redundancy and non-functional redundancy would come into play there. That is, unless one assumes that selection eliminates vestigial structures rather than traits that inhibit reproductive success.

It's a bit too PO-MO for me.

Tyler DiPietro said...

BTW, there is a new post at Aetiology that is prime to start up the HIV denialist "War on Tara" in the comment thread. I said I'd put you on standby. ;)

ERV said...


Tyler DiPietro said...

*flinches* Did I do something bad? Please don't hurt me. :/