In my blog post It’s Time to Tighten the Definition of “Random” I said it makes no sense to say “There is a pattern to a mutation’s randomness.” Joshua Swamidass (Washington University) and friends challenged me on this. Before I respond, let’s understand why anyone should care. I first tumbled into
Search Results for: swamidass
Michael Behe’s “Darwin Devolves” asks: Has Darwin solved the design problem in biology? Behe says absolutely not, and backs his position with detailed examples. Furthermore, nobody has really solved the famous problem of “irreducible complexity” that Behe described in “Darwin’s Black Box.” But Perry Marshall insists Behe has still omitted vital details and landmark experiments….
I’ve been conversing with folks on Peaceful Science about randomness in evolution. I asked them to define randomness. “T_aquaticus” replied: If you purposefully shuffle a deck of cards the result is
Joshua Swamidass from Washington University invited me to respond to conversations on his blog about Evolution 2.0. I wrote two blog posts in response. We are asking: Are the mutations that produce useful changes in evolution random? Or not? Joshua says they’re random. I (along with scientists like Nobel Prize winner Barbara McClintock) insist
S. Joshua Swamidass is an associate professor in the Laboratory and Genomic Medicine Division at Washington University in St Louis. His research uses computational methods solve problems at the intersection of medicine, chemistry and biology. Joshua and I have met at several conferences and had long discussions. He, like myself, is very interested in ending…