Eugene Shubert
Valued Senior Member
Where did you get your degree in math?Uh, no.
Physical reality, remember? You always have to check in with physical reality.
Where did you get your degree in math?Uh, no.
Physical reality, remember? You always have to check in with physical reality.
I could have got it from a Crackerjacks box and corrected you on that one.Where did you get your degree in math?
is simply and obviously wrong.Every child mathematician knows that the probability for a self-replicating molecular machine X to eventually produce self-replicating molecular machine Y is precisely the same probability for Y to eventually produce X.
You believe something about someone else and therefore you have defined something to be a molecular property ? That begs the question.I believe that you do engage in magical thinking. That's why I've defined a certain molecular property to be magical
I believe that you do engage in magical thinking. That's why I've defined a certain molecular property to be magical
I agree, it is no use beating a dead horse, but some of the responders to the OP made interesting and logical arguments, which I would hesitate to throw in the trashcan.So what do you think? Is it about time to shovel this pile over to the "Denial of Evolution VII" or even make a new "Denial of Evolution VIII" or just 'cut to the chase' and go straight to the Cesspool?
Nope. Nothing like that. You claim DNA is "maximally magical." It is not.Magic numbers are defined in chemistry and physics and magic squares are defined in mathematics. There are some atheists who refuse to use these phrases for religious reasons. Apparently, you are among those who are so fiercely devoted to atheism that you don’t want to violate the sanctity and purity of your religious faith.
Then you have failed, since neither is true.I believe that you do engage in magical thinking. That's why I've defined a certain molecular property to be magical.
So what do you think? Is it about time to shovel this pile over to the "Denial of Evolution VII" or even make a new "Denial of Evolution VIII" or just 'cut to the chase' and go straight to the Cesspool?
I wholeheartedly agree. Whining about the supposed magic in magic numbers, magic squares and maximally magical molecules, while refusing to acknowledge the scientific properties of their perfectly valid scientific definitions, is incredibly shameful.Deliberately missing the point is a useful rhetorical trick, when preaching from the pulpit, to people already predisposed to one's line of argument. Unfortunately, when one's words are written down and people have the chance to scrutinise them, the shortcoming in reasoning become all too apparent.
Except its you who is doing the whining.I wholeheartedly agree. Whining about the supposed magic in magic numbers, magic squares and maximally magical molecules, while refusing to acknowledge the scientific properties of their perfectly valid scientific definitions, is incredibly shameful.
I first defined an inheritable magical molecule in post #142.Nope. Nothing like that. You claim DNA is "maximally magical." It is not.
Words mean things.
OK. We'll call that the Eugene Molecule.I first defined an inheritable magical molecule in post #142.
"An inheritable magical molecule specifies all the molecular information needed for building and maintaining an organism such that virtually every mutation of that magical molecule represents a viable form of life."
Agreed.Mutations are random. If virtually every random mutation of that molecule would represent a viable form of life, then it's perfectly acceptable to say that that molecule is magical. Look up the definition of a charmed life.
Yes. If the Eugene Molecule existed, it could do that. Of course, it does not actually exist. (But you can believe it does if you engage in magical thinking; that's always popular with creationists.)Clearly, if magical inheritable molecules were maximally magical, then we can just exclude the "virtually every random mutation" condition. That would be having a maximally charmed life.
Incidentally, I'm not the first person to write authoritatively about magical molecules. Imagine a glass of water suddenly starting to boil, producing ice cubes in the glass and a small cloud of steam rising slowly toward the ceiling.Mutations are random. If virtually every random mutation of that molecule would represent a viable form of life, then it's perfectly acceptable to say that that molecule is magical. Look up the definition of a charmed life.
"Definition of charmed life. : a life protected as if by magic charms : a life unusually unaffected by dangers and difficulties."
Clearly, if magical inheritable molecules were maximally magical, then we can just exclude the "virtually every random mutation" condition. That would be having a maximally charmed life.
Still dodging the engine of natural selection, is he?OK. We'll call that the Eugene Molecule.
Agreed.
Yes. If the Eugene Molecule existed, it could do that. Of course, it does not actually exist. (But you can believe it does if you engage in magical thinking; that's always popular with creationists.)
I understand that you do not seem to have the foggiest idea what the theory of evolution is about. You also appear to be running some sort of strawman factory.I believe that all these clarifications should help. Who isn't understanding this?
Natural selection is the pea in a shell game. I have yet to see anyone refute Dr. John Sanford's fifth axiom, which is obviously an inescapably true universal principle.Still dodging the engine of natural selection, is he?
Only you.Back to what I was getting at about charmed molecules. An inheritable magical molecule is maximally magical if it specifies all the molecular information needed for building and maintaining an organism such that it and every successive random mutation of that unusually charmed molecule represents a viable form of life.
Now, it's conceivable that an inheritable magical molecule can be more magical than that. And I specified an additional property in post #142 that is conceivably possible, which also strikes me as adding to the magic. "Clearly, if magical inheritable molecules were maximally magical, then every life form could evolve into every other life form."
I believe that all these clarifications should help. Who isn't understanding this?
If you understand evolution, then answer my question. Can one life form evolve into any other life form?I understand that you do not seem to have the foggiest idea what the theory of evolution is about.
Why bring "magic" into it at all?I believe that all these clarifications should help. Who isn't understanding this?