The Pseudo-Scientific Belief in The I...

The Pseudo-Scientific Belief in The Inheritable Magical Molecule

Posted in the Evolution Debate Forum

First Prev
of 4
Next Last
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#1 Feb 2, 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

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#2 Feb 2, 2014
Shubee wrote:
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
The assembly of the simplest molecule that might carry instructions for inheritance is by definition many magnitudes of probability more likely than the spontaneous assembly of an entire complex creature (together with a far more complex version of the inheritance molecule itself). Even more so considering that we know how many of the precursors to that molecular assembly can occur through spontaneous chemical processes, raising the probability further.

This is obvious to anyone sane.

Occam's razor suggests that we take the relatively high probability answer over the exceedingly low probability answer.

It also suggests that an explanatory mechanism that allows for the single higher probability event to mutate into the millions of different inheritable molecules by a non-random selection process is a far superior explanation than one requiring the quantum creation of these millions of different molecules and their whole animal package as independent events.

Moreover, creatures whose genome and fossil history reveals even lower probability if they were to be created separately and just happen to conform to the nested hierarchy.

So once again, we are back to your insane belief that if a banana mysteriously appears on your desk after you leave the room and return, that you would regard its spontaneous quantum assembly from scratch as an explanation just as viable as all the other possible explanations, on the spurious grounds that its a p>0 event.

PS Nobody has claimed that "every mutation of that magical molecule represents a viable form of life" and you know it. Why lie?
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#3 Feb 3, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
The assembly of the simplest molecule that might carry instructions for inheritance is by definition many magnitudes of probability more likely than the spontaneous assembly of an entire complex creature
The problem, of course, is that there is no known sequence of genetically engineered living things that begins with an oak tree and ends with a human being such that the number of genetic differences from one living thing to the next one in the sequence differs by less than 200 mutations, where each living thing is obviously viable in a suitable environment.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#4 Feb 3, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
Occam's razor suggests that we take the relatively high probability answer over the exceedingly low probability answer.
True science acknowledges a much higher standard than what Occam could have imagined in the medieval age. In fact, even ordinary 19th century thinking surpasses Occam's primitive principle. An example of a higher principle would be, as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle has said in the character of Sherlock Holmes, "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

As for the greatest principle, indisputably, Hilbert's program for the axiomatization of physics is the highest and purest form of science ever conceptualized by the human mind.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#5 Feb 3, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
So once again, we are back to your insane belief that if a banana mysteriously appears on your desk after you leave the room and return, that you would regard its spontaneous quantum assembly from scratch as an explanation just as viable as all the other possible explanations, on the spurious grounds that its a p>0 event.
I was very surprised by the many gifts I received last Christmas. I think it's far more likely that someone would leave for me a piece of fruit as a gift than the possibility of spontaneous quantum assembly.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#6 Feb 3, 2014
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> True science acknowledges a much higher standard than what Occam could have imagined in the medieval age. In fact, even ordinary 19th century thinking surpasses Occam's primitive principle. An example of a higher principle would be, as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle has said in the character of Sherlock Holmes, "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
As for the greatest principle, indisputably, Hilbert's program for the axiomatization of physics is the highest and purest form of science ever conceptualized by the human mind.

Hibert is old school.

We are talking modern science, not off the wall notions of some dead guy.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#7 Feb 3, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
Nobody has claimed that "every mutation of that magical molecule represents a viable form of life"
There is no evidence in the fossil record of even one non-viable creature. And as you know, the Cambrian period represents an explosion of life. The next epoch is an obvious exception given that we are fast approaching the total genomic meltdown that Dr John C. Sanford predicted.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#8 Feb 3, 2014
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> The problem, of course, is that there is no known sequence of genetically engineered living things that begins with an oak tree and ends with a human being such that the number of genetic differences from one living thing to the next one in the sequence differs by less than 200 mutations, where each living thing is obviously viable in a suitable environment.
The problem, of course, is that nobody is interested in the strawman arguments you concoct.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#9 Feb 3, 2014
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> True science acknowledges a much higher standard than what Occam could have imagined in the medieval age. In fact, even ordinary 19th century thinking surpasses Occam's primitive principle. An example of a higher principle would be, as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle has said in the character of Sherlock Holmes, "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
And Sir Arthur would also state that given a choice between a moderately improbable event such as the formation of the simplest self replicating molecule versus an incalculably more improbable event such as the quantum poofing of an entire advanced creature (in fact millions of different advanced creatures independently), then the only choice is to accept the less improbable event.

Like I said, when that banana appears on your desk when you were out of the room, almost any explanation is better than assuming that it quantum poofed itself into existence on your desk.

And Occam, of course, would concur with Sir Arthur.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#10 Feb 3, 2014
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> I was very surprised by the many gifts I received last Christmas. I think it's far more likely that someone would leave for me a piece of fruit as a gift than the possibility of spontaneous quantum assembly.
Then by the same reasoning, its far more likely that a simple self replicating molecule could assemble (especially given the precursors we already know can occur), than assuming that the whole array of life was poofed into existence in a series of independent quantum poofing events.

Its not only more likely, its far more likely to the power of a googleplex, figuratively speaking.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#11 Feb 3, 2014
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> There is no evidence in the fossil record of even one non-viable creature. And as you know, the Cambrian period represents an explosion of life. The next epoch is an obvious exception given that we are fast approaching the total genomic meltdown that Dr John C. Sanford predicted.
Well, a grossly non viable creature for the most part does not even make it out of the womb/egg. And in nature, if it does, it will seldom survive for more than a few days. As for paler shades of non viability, such as say a predisposition to early cancer or a neurological deficit affecting balance etc etc etc, how would you determine these from the bones anyway?

This is a very silly argument.

Simple probability suggests that the fossil we find, being as rare as they are, will more likely be representative of averages in a population, not freaks. Early claims of Neanderthal as merely a grossly deformed human were touted when there were only one or two specimens, but as more turned up (and no modern humans at the same time and place), it became statistically obvious that the Neanderthals found were typical of the hominids running around Europe between 400,000 and 40,000 years ago. They were not freaks. They were a different species or subspecies.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#12 Feb 4, 2014
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#13 Feb 4, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
And Sir Arthur would also state that given a choice between a moderately improbable event such as the formation of the simplest self replicating molecule versus an incalculably more improbable event such as the quantum poofing of an entire advanced creature (in fact millions of different advanced creatures independently), then the only choice is to accept the less improbable event.
That would be expected since Arthur Conan Doyle was a supporter of spiritualism. However, I think I have valid arguments to oppose the first demon's message. everythingimportant.org
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#14 Feb 4, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
And Sir Arthur would also state that given a choice between a moderately improbable event such as the formation of the simplest self replicating molecule versus an incalculably more improbable event such as the quantum poofing of an entire advanced creature (in fact millions of different advanced creatures independently), then the only choice is to accept the less improbable event.
But most certainly David Hilbert wouldn't have said anything that unscientific.
everythingimportant.org/physics/Hilbert.htm
Chimney1 wrote:
Like I said, when that banana appears on your desk when you were out of the room, almost any explanation is better than assuming that it quantum poofed itself into existence on your desk.
I accept your argument. But your argument is a mere acknowledgement that the first living thing was created by God.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#15 Feb 4, 2014
Ahh shaddap Shoob, ya anti-reality nut.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#16 Feb 4, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
Early claims of Neanderthal as merely a grossly deformed human were touted when there were only one or two specimens, but as more turned up (and no modern humans at the same time and place), it became statistically obvious that the Neanderthals found were typical of the hominids running around Europe between 400,000 and 40,000 years ago. They were not freaks. They were a different species or subspecies.
I accept that Neanderthals were once a thriving subspecies, like evolutionists.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#17 Feb 4, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
the only choice is to accept the less improbable event.
"All of science is uncertain and subject to revision. The glory of science is to imagine more than we can prove." - Freeman Dyson.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#18 Feb 4, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
Well, a grossly non viable creature for the most part does not even make it out of the womb/egg. And in nature, if it does, it will seldom survive for more than a few days. As for paler shades of non viability, such as say a predisposition to early cancer or a neurological deficit affecting balance etc etc etc, how would you determine these from the bones anyway?
The non-falsifiability of your claims is your problem, not mine.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#19 Feb 4, 2014
MAAT wrote:
And direct comments of Sanfords book:
http://www.amazon.com/Genetic-Entropy-Mystery...
I was so inspired by Sanford's book that I assembled and put online a mathematized version of Sanford's thesis, which I call Sanford's Genomic Degeneration Theorem.

I am certain that Sanford's thesis is correct since it rests on a universal, empirical principle, the notorious fifth axiom:

AXIOM 5
Whenever information or code is expressed in the alphabet of any language, successive random copying errors of that code will inevitably destroy the information beyond useful functionality after a limited number of iterations. If this axiom is inescapably true as a universal principle, then it is certainly applicable in every conceivable special case such as the information in anything resembling a book, a computer code (written in any known computer language) or DNA, regardless of the number of pages that might be devoted to an exhaustive but irrelevant index and glossary, to any computer code that might have embedded within it a huge number of comments (unreadable by computers), which are routinely inserted by programmers as indispensable documentation for other programmers that might take up the task of modifying the software in the future, and DNA, which, conceivably, might contain segments that have no discernible purpose.

It seems to me that the much maligned fifth axiom is not truly an axiom at all but that it can be proven mathematically. It is certainly empirically true from every conceivable experiment.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#20 Feb 4, 2014
It should be noted that real scientists have officially told Shubee to get lost.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
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
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 57 min OKTHEN 173,310
Beware of Kamikaze Snakes. They Are Evolving in... 2 hr Zog Has-fallen 59
What Motives Created Social Darwinism? 4 hr Zog Has-fallen 66
News Pope Francis Affirms Evolution and Big Bang Theory 5 hr Chimney1 420
Darwinism: Science or Philosophy? 7 hr Zog Has-fallen 46
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 12 hr Chimney1 143,878
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 12 hr DanFromSmithville 178,688
More from around the web