Quantifying the Magic of the Inheritable Magical Molecule

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by Eugene Shubert, May 6, 2014.

  1. Eugene Shubert Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,067
    What's more magical than quantum creationism? How about an inheritable magical molecule that specifies the molecular information needed for building and maintaining an organism such that every mutation of that magical molecule represents a viable form of life? It seems to me that the creation of any one organism with an inheritable magical molecule, which also embodies every conceivable organism, is far more unthinkable and absurd than what is written in Genesis.

    Let's quantify how magical the inheritable magical molecule actually is.

    Zog Has-fallen's number is the present average percent of births across all life-forms where the progeny are not viable or fertile due to inherited genetic defects. What is the best estimate of Zog's number? How does Zog's number vary from one species to another?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Eugene Shubert Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,067
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    The DNA is not really all that magical, except through the prism of traditions. The DNA is more like a hard drive of a computer, in that it contains data and programs, but of itself, it can do nothing. For example, a virus is as close to pure DNA as possible, but it is not considered alive. Rather it needs to make use of the cell body of a host cell, to create an illusion of life. The magic of the DNA you see is in the bias of traditions.

    When cells divides, they always include the cell bodies of daughter cells, along with the doubled DNA. The cell body can be alive without the DNA (red blood cells) but not the other way around. One does not see life starting with only the DNA replicating and then build the cell body from scratch. The hard drive is useless without a support mechanism. As a hard drive, it contains the data and programs, but like any hard drive, it needs cellular components to make use of this data. It needs a power supply, read/write mechanism, input-output devices, etc.,

    The Zog's number can be misleading. For example, a male and female can mate, with one or the other being sterile. The result is neither will reproduce. In this case, one person is defined by their internal DNA hard drive lacking the data, while the other is defined by the data lacking in an external DNA hard drive.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Eugene Shubert Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,067
    Any number that is well-defined isn't going to mislead everyone. Zog's number is well-defined. So what is Zog's number?
     
  8. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,913
    This should be in the religion section.

    If by magic molecule you mean DNA, you are really misrepresenting the role of DNA. Do you think it is a coincidence that all identical twins also have the same DNA, or does DNA have a role in inheritence? By the way nothing is more absurd than taking taking what is written in Genesis literally. Now there is some magic!
     
  9. Eugene Shubert Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,067
    I really don't expect religionists to know anything about the quantity called Zog's number.
     
  10. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,913
    Well I don't know anything about Zog's number either (that I recall). I thought he was a general from Krypton that didn't like Superman.

    Perhaps you could discuss it a bit and enlighten me. What is the estimate? How does it vary? What do you see as it's significance?
     
  11. Eugene Shubert Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,067
    Zog's number was defined in the opening post. I suppose that a biologist should know some reasonable estimates of the number for at least a few species.
     
  12. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,913
    Looked up 'Zog Has-fallen's number' on google and all I get is a bunch of hits for some clown haunting internet forums.:shrug:
     
  13. Eugene Shubert Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,067
    All science has precise definitions and only scientists can grapple with scientific concepts that are expressed in mathematical language. Anyone can ask a scientific question.
     
  14. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,913
    Why do you say that? I am not a scientist and I can 'grapple' with concepts that are expressed in mathematical language. How about F=ma?

    They sure can.
     
  15. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    i would guess zero.
    non viable life forms do not give birth.
     
  16. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    Evidently obscurity. :shrug:

    There is no such thing. Mutations are only fractionally viable, and further subject to selection.

    Indeed, no such magic molecule exists, so the comparison is moot.

    There is no such thing to quantify. The process of descent with modification is not one-dimensional. Quantification begins with Mendel--and even though that will no doubt blow your mind, it's very elementary to the quantifications done by modern geneticists. Whatever your concerns are, they appear to derive from an infamiliarity with the related math & sciences.

    If that's your thesis, it's not even stated correctly. A vast number of species do not reproduce through fertilization, therefore "all life forms" is incorrect. Further, you've not connected this idea to any tangible topic in genetics or biology.

    The precision of all estimates is inversely proportional to the degree of obscurity.

    It sounds like a rhetorical question stemming from some problems you are having understanding biology, genetics, stochastic processes, and all of the details of evolution from mutation to gene flow to selection.

    Why not simply state clearly what's on your mind, rather than putting us on an Easter egg hunt trying to figure out what you're talking about? If you're not here to discuss Biology, then ask to have this moved to Religion, as Origin suggested. If your intent is to deny evolution, refer to the standing threads on "Denial of Evolution".
     
  17. Eugene Shubert Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,067
    How does the definition of Zog's number imply reproduction through fertilization?

    The word fertile simply means:

    fer•tile
    adjective
    1. bearing, producing, or capable of producing vegetation, crops, etc., abundantly; prolific: fertile soil.
    2. bearing or capable of bearing offspring.
    3. abundantly productive: a fertile imagination.
    4. producing an abundance (usually followed by of or in ): a land fertile of wheat.
    5. conducive to productiveness: fertile showers.
     
  18. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    This is unnecessarily cryptic and evasive bullshit, and I've reported it as such. Stop wasting good thread space.
     
  19. Eugene Shubert Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,067
    If you don't believe that Zog's number is well-defined, could you please explain why it isn't a well-defined number, even approximately?
     
  20. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,913
    Zog's number is not well defined and is apparently a made up term that is covered by other data.

    Two-thirds of all human embryos fail to develop successfully. Which shows that the God performs more abortions than all the doctors in the world put together by far.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. Eugene Shubert Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,067
    Mathematics is the science of discovering precise definitions and new theorems that reveal exquisite structures. And mathematicians are scientists with the audacity to make up whatever definitions they like on their own authority because they can see and intuit the prospect of a significant new theorem. Zog is a mathematician.

    If Zog's number is covered by other data, let’s uncover it so that Zog’s number can be acknowledged as an empirical fact and then let it be used by Zog to quantify what he perceives as being miraculous.
     
  22. Eugene Shubert Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,067
    That has nothing to do with Zog's number.
     
  23. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,913
    Swell, you introduced Zog you define it. I'll check back periodically to see how your are doing.

    Good luck.
     

Share This Page