The Inheritable Magical Molecule

Posted in the Evolution Debate Forum

First Prev
of 19
Next Last

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#1 May 5, 2014
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.
http://everythingimportant.org/evolution

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#2 May 5, 2014
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 genetic defects. What is the best estimate of Shubert's number? How does Shubert's number vary from one species to another?

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#3 May 5, 2014
Correction: Make that inherited genetic defects.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#4 May 6, 2014
Ahhh, shaddap Shoobee, ya mook.

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#5 May 8, 2014
This is hilarious. Buffy the Slayer banned me from the Hypography Science Forums because I was the cause of her exposing herself as an emotionally-based pseudo-scientist that disapproves of thinking outside the box.
http://everythingimportant.org/Buffy
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#6 May 9, 2014
She slayed you

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#7 May 9, 2014
Truthfully, Buffy slayed herself. It was a self-inflicted accident caused by her disinterest in truth and her unfamiliarity with the weapons of scientific combat.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#8 May 9, 2014

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#9 May 9, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
This is hilarious. Buffy the Slayer banned me from the Hypography Science Forums because I was the cause of her exposing herself as an emotionally-based pseudo-scientist that disapproves of thinking outside the box.
http://everythingimportant.org/Buffy
Let's see....

Your church banned you.

AJP banned you.

Buffy banned you.

We would if we could.

So what do you see as the problem here, Einstein?

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#10 May 9, 2014
MikeF wrote:
Let's see....
Your church banned you.
AJP banned you.
Buffy banned you.
We would if we could.
So what do you see as the problem here, Einstein?
Everything here is as it should be. As the Scriptures teach, the judgments of hypocrites are the judgments of self. For example, you estimated Shubert's number to be zero, which, unknown to you, is a vote for a maximally magical, miraculous molecule.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TD8...

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#11 May 10, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
<quoted text> Everything here is as it should be. As the Scriptures teach, the judgments of hypocrites are the judgments of self. For example, you estimated Shubert's number to be zero, which, unknown to you, is a vote for a maximally magical, miraculous molecule.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TD8...
Not exactly. It was an estimate of your value to society,

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#12 May 10, 2014
MikeF wrote:
Not exactly.
Liar.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#13 May 11, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's see....
Your church banned you.
AJP banned you.
Buffy banned you.
We would if we could.
So what do you see as the problem here, Einstein?
No, I would not ban Shubee Zog, where is the fun in that?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#14 May 11, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
<quoted text> Everything here is as it should be. As the Scriptures teach, the judgments of hypocrites are the judgments of self. For example, you estimated Shubert's number to be zero, which, unknown to you, is a vote for a maximally magical, miraculous molecule.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TD8...
I have no idea what Shubee's number is, but I would make a blind wager that its impact on anything meaningful is a big fat zero. My only guideline is that do date you have produced nothing but noise.

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#15 May 11, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no idea what Shubee's number is, but I would make a blind wager that its impact on anything meaningful is a big fat zero. My only guideline is that do date you have produced nothing but noise.
It is about the rate of newborn in any generation of a species with any genetic abnormality.
To calculate it you need a lot of maths, like statistics using a lot of maths too to calculate probability numbers out of a sample into valid, population wide conclusions.
He thinks that using the maths makes his number extraordinary accurate and valid. There are more first class high school level people who think when there is a lot of maths into a concept, it must be true.

You probably already smell the stink: "genetic entropy" - "hence evolution is not true".
It is just a rendition of good ol' Sanfords rubbish.
Sanford held that the genome is deteriorating and therefore could not have evolved in the way specified by the modern evolutionary synthesis.

Shubee's mathematical reasoning go like this: if you have a book or a piece of text and it contains, let's say, 20 grammatical and spelling errors and the text is passed to to a next person, asked to rewrite it, this person will inevitably make some more mistakes and after 100 persons, the text will be chockfull of errors. This process of course can be mathematically calculated and put into a number. This has been done for species populations, says Shubee.

Several people have tried to explain him that population genetics do not go like that:
1) in DNA there are several mechanisms known to correct occurring errors
2) many potentially deleterious mutations will just hit the junk part of the DNA and will not have any effect on the "healthiness" of the genome
3) but, above all, the process of natural selection will weed out deleterious mutations through lower survival and reproduction chances.

We all know how it goes with fundies in these instances: OF COURSE Shubee did not address these issues AT ALL. He just kept on reasoning how valid the maths is and went on with explaining the book example.

There even was a guy who explained the flaws through the very same book example: if the persons are not only asked to rewrite the books but also to correct them on the job on spelling and grammatical errors, off goes the maths. Not because of flawed calculations or incorrect equations but of invalid premises. Before a book will be excepted by a publisher (the moment when it enters the "population" of published books), a reditor will check the text. That's common practice. But Shubee does not pay attention to these comments and after a while people get annoyed and kick him out.

Sanford's own concept of genetic entropy does include the above mentioned items 1) and 2) but not 3)- natural selection. Thus, Sanford represents evolution to like this:

genetic mutations => speciation

But that is not what evolution theory says:

environmental change
V
natural selection
V
genetic mutations ==========> speciation

Leaving out the natural selection part is unforgivable because it is the very heart of evolution theory. As a matter of fact, is a straw man fallacy and straight deceit.

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#16 May 11, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no idea what Shubee's number is, but I would make a blind wager that its impact on anything meaningful is a big fat zero. My only guideline is that do date you have produced nothing but noise.
Shubee (ahum, "Zog") also hold that the Shubert's number has been dodged by biologists, insinuating that biologists do not study population genetics and even do not calculate the rates of genetic diseases because of their unwillingness to "face the facts".

He is very wrong on this too.
Population genetics is a very important and integral part of biology.
Much research is going on on that.
Genetic disease rates are calculated all the time, because they are not only intrinsically important for the progress of biological science but also for public policy makers, as it indicates the future burden of health care.

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#17 May 11, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
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 genetic defects. What is the best estimate of Shubert's number? How does Shubert's number vary from one species to another?
Calculations of the incidence (or prevalence) of genetic diseases or disorder rates among populations are abundantly done by population geneticists and quantitative genetics. There you will find the correct rates. The reason why biologists are so stubbornly unwilling to calculate your completely unknown and superfluous magical number is because they established their own methods and indicators for the rate prevalence of genetic diseases or disorders among populations.

The prevalence of genetic diseases or disorders among populations is not established by mathematical simulation models but mainly by COUNTING them and than you need a lot of statistics (and with the statistics come the maths) to validly extrapolate those counts to valid population rates. Mathematical probability simulation models are not to be applied here.

IF the statistics show a particular tendency, let's say, we see a gradual incline increase in genetic diseases or disorders, you might use simulation models to calculate long term effects. But you don't use simulation models to calculate PAST genetic disease or disorder rates. For past or existing rates we COUNT.

And IF you use simulation calculation, you are obliged to represent the genetic processes in populations CORRECTLY. The model has to represent the mechanisms and processes observed in nature. In nature we observe (1) natural selection,(2) several DNA repair mechanisms on the cellular level and (3) uncoding DNA.

Thus:
1) natural selection weeds out deleterious mutations through higer death and lower reproduction chances. Individuals stroke by genetic disease or disorder have lower survival and reproduction chances. Hence, the deleterious mutations will not have high chances to be fixed into the population genome as they are sorted out by their very deleteriousness
2) many mutations are corrected by those repair mechanism, also the ones that hit the germ cells (the other, somatic cells have no relevance for the future population genome)
3) many mutations hit parts of the DNA that do not code for proteins directly of indirectly (hox genes). Thus they do not affect the "healthiness" of the population genome.

Not accounting for these processes and mechanisms in your calculation make them worthless and superfluous. AS NOTICED by several people on the fora elsewhere. But you just ignored those. Which makes you a terrible annoying person, causing others just to kick you out.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#18 May 11, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
<quoted text>Liar.
Jerkoff.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#19 May 11, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I would not ban Shubee Zog, where is the fun in that?
I don't find him fun. Many of the other fundies can be fun. He's just an arrogant, delusional twerp who does nothing but preach and listens to nothing.

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#20 May 11, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
Shubee (ahum, "Zog") also hold that the Shubert's number has been dodged by biologists,
Liar.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 19
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 8 min ChristineM 142,399
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 29 min ChristineM 14,592
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) 4 hr karl44 796
Stephen King: Universe 'Suggests Intelligent De... (May '13) 8 hr Kong_ 455
Why natural selection can't work 9 hr Dogen 24
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 16 hr ChromiuMan 941
Darwin on the rocks Tue The Dude 832
More from around the web