Quantifying the Magic of the Inheritable Magical Molecule

i suggest you ask zog what his number is instead of asking everybody else.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Whatever game you are playing has no relevance to Biology. It either belongs in Religion, Politics or one of the fantasy forums.

Evidently you never studied life sciences or you would not have posted this definition, since it only clarifies that you are restricting your proposition to organisms which reproduce sexually. Since you seem to be attacking evolution from some obscure religious premise, and since your opening remarks vaguely refer to the earliest forms of DNA, you should be addressing binary fission in prokaryotes, not sexual reproduction, which evolved later.

Therefore none of the still unexplained remarks you have made have any relevance to any questions of population densities vs rates of fertile offspring. Nor can you intelligently discuss such statistics without referring to the evidence collected and reviewed in subjects like Biology and Genetics. As I said earlier, you need to start with Mendel and explain what you mean.

So you never took any math either? :bugeye:

Explain how this crank claim applies to Euclid, Descartes or Poincare. I assume you've heard of at least one of them.

Ok, I'll play. Zog who?

Hypothetical. No factual predicate has been laid to carry this statement further.

Invalid hypothesis, see above.

No conclusion stems from the invalid hypothesis.

No extrapolations on void conclusions can follow.

Invalid/moot: No factual predicate /valid premise has been laid.

Absurd/obscure

Fodder for religion/fantasy threads. Nevertheless, no premise exists to draw this conclusion.

So you are just a troll after all.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I found this;

This is one of four enzymes involved in the production of cytokinins.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I do not interpret the language that way.

fer•tile
adjective
1. bearing, producing, or capable of producing vegetation, crops, etc.

I interpret the etcetera to include definition 2: "bearing or capable of bearing offspring."

off·spring
noun,
1. children or young of a particular parent or progenitor.
2. a child or animal in relation to its parent or parents.
3. a descendant.
4. descendants collectively.
5. the product, result, or effect of something: the offspring of an inventive mind.

This second definition obviously encompasses self-replicating life forms.

 

You need a little more than the quick search on a dictionary definition to get to the source of your error. As I said, since you are posting in the biology forum, the word "fertility" has a technical meaning. It does not apply to all organisms. You skin cells reproduce to replenish the tissue. They are not said to be "fertile". The same is true for a substantial proportion of all the living organisms on Earth. "Fertility" is the wrong concept. Whatever your complaint is against the teaching of evolution in Biology class, it's misplaced. Prokaryotes were not fertile at all, yet they are evidently the common ancestors of all biota.

You sound like you've never taken a biology class. Consider enrolling in one. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised by the current state of the science.

 

Is there anyone here capable of translating my pedestrian language into its straightforward, precise technical language for biologists?