Jump to content
Science Forums

Quantifying The Magic Of The Inheritable Magical Molecule


ZogHasFallen

Recommended Posts

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.

 

Shubert'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 Shubert's number? How does Shubert's number vary from one species to another?

Edited by Buffy
Obnoxiously large font reduced.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...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? 

 

 

No, most mutations are not successful, and there are even mechanisms that prevent them from being copied.

 

 

...which also embodies every conceivable organism...

 

It doesn't it only encodes one particular organism. It happens to be built of the same parts, in the same way an airplane and a toaster are made out of sheet metal and screws.

 

 

 

Shubert's number is the present average percent of births....

 

 

Because your assumptions are fallacious, anything you draw from application of some math is going to be pure garbage. 

 

Finding something "hard to believe" is exactly how mindless people try to stop the "threat" of scientific progress. So unless there's some actual evidence that's based on actual data and not a misrepresentation thereof, arguments of this type are unlikely to convince anyone other than those who have already chosen to be similarly misinformed.

 

 

Education: that which reveals to the wise, and conceals from the stupid, the vast limits of their knowledge, :phones:

Buffy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if almost every small mutation of a virtually magical molecule represents a viable form of life, then eventually a fantastic variety of life forms could be produced.

 

 

Yep! isn't it just *amazing*? 

 

Did you know that if you randomly change just one digit in the area code when you make a call, you might end up reaching someone in a *completely different state*? It just boggles the mind! 

 

On the other hand, there are still huge numbers of phone lines that aren't connected, so you have a pretty good chance of simply talking to the "this line is not in service" lady.

 

If you're going to use math to try to prove something about evolution, it would be a really good idea to get a handle on those vague quantitative adjectives you're throwing around like "almost every" because they betray fundamental misunderstandings of the true combinatorics found in that "magical molecule."

 

You might want to study them a bit more before considering yourself an expert.

 

 

A ruffled mind makes a restless pillow, :phones:

Buffy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am writing a comedy Professor character whose opening line is

 

"Welcome to the magical world of science"

 

This line is to me absurd. Setting the stage for me to talk absolute tripe.

 

DNA isn't magic, but nor is magic!

 

I toured with a magician once, it took a lot of work, practice practice practice, to disappear like magic. There were many variations on the theme before I got it right, the barked shins variation, the costume caught on the trapdoor variation. The scripts themselves were trial and error, though the best environment to evolve them quickly was live in front of a crowd in stand up spots.  It took a lot of 'evolution' just to make the one (tight) show, a lot of failed mutations getting there.

 

Nothing magic to any of it. Trial and error, just throwing stuff out there, environmental testing, and time.

 

It's a good formula. It works. And that's pretty much what DNA is doing as well. Sometimes the really random stuff hits the spot, sometimes it dies :D Sometimes we just diverge a wee bit on an old theme...

 

The whole 7 day creation thing, if you could explain how this works behind the scenes, like I can explain (a tiny bit of) behind the scenes of stage and bio-evolution... Creation is a magic story - let there be a dove - and behold - there was!

 

DNA is not a magic molecule, but it does do some pretty neat 'tricks'.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually....

 

DNA, and any 3000km molecule, is sort of magic.

 

Proteins are pretty cool too...

Lipids , ergh, not so much

 

...and to tell ya the truth, I'm still tripping on the whole ATP fischer and paykel motor... how the 'f did that evolve.

 

I hate creationism (and the people that are devout followers)

,but alot of what is observed really makes you think.

 

PS. Computer modelling should put an end to making people think...apparently the answer is 1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if it were the case that "Shubert's Number" was a well-known metric of mutational success (and a cursory search indicates it's not), it would not matter because your premises are false.

 

 

An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup, :phones:

Buffy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if it were the case that "Shubert's Number" was a well-known metric of mutational success (and a cursory search indicates it's not), it would not matter because your premises are false.

 

 

An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup, :phones:

Buffy

 

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. Shubert's number is well-defined. I suppose that a biologist should know some reasonable estimates of the number for at least a few species.

Edited by ZogHasFallen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet you choose not to define any of your concepts, and that's not scientific. 

 

You get one more chance to define your terms and ask a scientific question.

 

 

When a person cannot deceive himself the chances are against his being able to deceive other people, :phones:

Buffy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You get one more chance to define your terms and ask a scientific question.

 

 

Please identify all the undefined terms that require clarification in the following questions and please explain why the questions aren't scientific:

 

Shubert'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 Shubert's number? How does Shubert's number vary from one species to another?

Edited by ZogHasFallen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Shubert's Number" when Googled results in nothing besides your posts above. There is no other reference to it on the Internet. One would assume based on the definition you gave that someone named Shubert already computed it. The casual observer would be forced to assume it's made up.

 

Of course "progeny [that] are not viable or fertile" have genes that are by definition selected out without outside intervention (e.g. mules), and thus the genetic mutations that have occurred (or been induced), rarely propagate.

 

It's certainly true that some species DNA is more prone to deleterious mutation than others, and at the same time, mutation can be heavily influenced by environmental factors (e.g radiation, hormone production). It would indeed be an interesting "number" to figure out, with much creativity being involved in figuring out not only how to justifiably compute it but to separate out the inherited versus environmental components..

 

There would be many assumptions built into how that number is derived and the limits of its application.

 

That would be a major piece of research, requiring much more than a once sentence description in order to understand.

 

 

The mind revels in conjecture. Where information is lacking, it will gladly fill in the gaps, :phones:

Buffy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Shubert's Number" when Googled results in nothing besides your posts above. There is no other reference to it on the Internet. ... The casual observer would be forced to assume it's made up.

 

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. Shubert is a mathematician.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem very angry and confused. I'm sorry about that.

 

You may mean Hermann Schubert (note the spelling) who is not well known unless you get into algebraic geometry where his Enumerative Calculus and Schubert Varieties are relevant. He was a pure mathematician however and did not do any application of his work to statistical analysis of genetic distribution in populations of species.

 

You might also mean Bruno O. Shubert, who focuses on statistics and has written a book on Bayesian Probability in Engineering applications. He also has not published any work that applies statistics to genetics, and is not really known for having any well-known computation of a "number" associated with him.

 

There are no other Shubert's who are recognized as having any major or relevant impact on mathematics or applied genetics. This is of course ignoring a certain Eugene Shubert, whose writings are incomprehensible and incoherent and who has been seen trolling certain forums claiming the superiority of mathematics to physics and other such drivel.

 

It appears that there may not be a good fit between you and our forum, but thank you for your attempt at participation.

 

 

Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish, :phones:

Buffy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...