Tuesday, November 16, 2010

How the Eukaryote Got its Mitochondria

If someone tossed an important part onto their car’s engine, and slammed down the hood, you wouldn’t expect it to work. And if it did work you’d be suspicious. The claim is either absurd or rigged.

The power plant of eukaryote cells is the mitochondria and evolutionists say these marvels first arose when an early pre-eukaryote cell swallowed up a bacteria which then morphed into a mitochondria.

The story may not be as unlikely as it first appears as cells are able to import, one way or another, all kinds of molecular debris. And sometimes the flotsam turns functional.

To be sure turning an early bacteria into the finely-tuned mitochondria, and integrating it within a host cell, does not seem to be an easy task. One way the mitochondria interacts with the cell around it is via its importing of protein machines from the cell’s cytoplasm. But how did its protein importing mechanisms arise?

As evolutionists wrote earlier this year, those importing mechanisms may be been donated from the host cell, or they may have come from within:

How did the process of protein import in mitochondria—which facilitated the evolution of this organelle, and thus, eukaryotic cell evolution—arise? Was the process driven by the ancestral host cell or by the prokaryotic endosymbiont, or by both? … [In the former], to capitalize on energy production by the ancestral endosymbiont, a protein sorting and importing mechanism was necessary to relocate host cell proteins to the endosymbiont.

To capitalize on energy production? Very clever.

Once established [at the outer membrane], host proteins could then gain access to the intermembrane space and the inner membrane in an “outside-to-inside” trajectory of evolution.

More cleverness, but it was all built into previous designs:

In support of this view, some characteristics of host cell proteins appear to have served as “preadaptations” for mitochondrial protein import.

On the other hand, maybe it all happened in the reverse order:

An alternative viewpoint favors an active role of the endosymbiont in establishing key elements of the protein import pathway. We suggest that both the TOM complex in the outer membrane and the transporter in the inner membrane (TIM complex) were derived from ancestral bacterial proteins—that is, proteins originally encoded by the bacterial endosymbiont’s genome. This evolutionary tinkering—constructing a new molecular machine from existing parts—inside the ancestral bacterium is in line with Jacob’s proposition for the evolution of new cellular functions, which states that new pieces of cellular machinery arise ad hoc, often cobbled together from pieces (proteins) already available in other guises.

But here too evolution is ingenious, constructing amazing mechanisms from chewing gum and baling wire.

Who knows, perhaps the eukaryote did obtain its mitochondria by hijacking a bacteria and capitalizing on its ill-gotten gain. But in that case we must believe evolution just happened to create all kinds of parts, not to mention the bacteria and the means for it to be swallowed by the eukaryote, that fortuitously came together to produce the much needed mitochondria.

These various parts and mechanisms would have to have arisen for other reasons. They could not have been selected to form the mitochondria.

Perhaps the chances of the mitochondria evolving were high. Perhaps the brilliant eukaryotic power house is a no-brainer. But if so do not evolutionists think twice about their story? When they claim that the evolution of some marvel is easy, they are just bumping the problem back a few spaces where it is out of sight.

76 comments:

  1. ZOMG!!!!!

    Scientists haven't discovered all the details about events that happened 3+ billion years ago, so therefore DESIGN!!!!

    Look on the bright side for IDCers: no brains = no headaches.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Wow, can someone say irony? Perhaps Thorton will get it soon.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Cornelius Hunter:

    "Perhaps the brilliant eukaryotic power house is a no-brainer. But if so do not evolutionists think twice about their story?"
    ======

    No, absolutely not and here's why. It's called faith. Here's how the Bible defines faith and I'll list several translations to help give us the full flavour. *wink*

    Hebrew 11:1 - (Amplified Bible)

    (1) "NOW FAITH is the assurance (the confirmation, [a]the title deed) of the things [we] hope for, being the proof of things [we] do not see and the conviction of their reality [faith perceiving as real fact what is not revealed to the senses]."

    ---

    Hebrews 11:1 (New Living Translation)

    (1) "Faith is the confidence that what we hope for will actually happen; it gives us assurance about things we cannot see."

    ---

    Hebrews 11:1 (New Century Version)

    (1) "Faith means being sure of the things we hope for and knowing that something is real even if we do not see it."

    ---

    Here's a scripture that shows that an Evolutionist's faith is not necessarily an established fact after all. For example, story telling , fables and myths are necessary where no experiment involving the "scientific method" has ever been employ to establish numerous dogmas as FACT.

    Romans 8:24 (New International Version)

    24 " . . . BUT HOPE THAT IS SEEN IS NO HOPE AT ALL. WHO HOPES FOR WHAT THEY ALREADY HAVE ?"

    Evolutionist: "No science has not proven Abiogenesis, so what? , One day they will."
    -------------------------------------------

    Cornelius Hunter:

    When they claim that the evolution of some marvel is easy, they are just bumping the problem back a few spaces where it is out of sight.
    =======

    Never underestimate the power of blind faith!!!

    ReplyDelete
  4. It was so easy to occur, and such a simple process that it has been replicated many times in scientific experiments, not.
    .

    ReplyDelete
  5. Peter: It was so easy to occur, and such a simple process that it has been replicated many times in scientific experiments, not.

    Yes.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Peter said...

    It was so easy to occur, and such a simple process that it has been replicated many times in scientific experiments, not.


    I didn't see the researchers using the terms 'easy' or 'simple' anywhere in the original papers or article. Perhaps you were thinking of the simple-mined Creationists who find it easy to hand wave away scientific evidence they don't understand and can't explain.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Cornelius,

    All you have to do is write to the authors who work at the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Monash University. The Monash U paper has 16 references. The first reference is an article by Carl Zimmer, who lists 13 references. But then Zimmer is not upto snuff (never mind he has reduced creos to helpless indignation). The next reference is a paper by the Bhattacharya Lab at U.Iowa. Why not then write to Debashish, or just pick up the phone and talk to him? You could go a little further and write to the President of U.Iowa, Dr. Sally Mason, herself a distinguished biologist and academic administrator (formerly Provost of Purdue), that the university is passing off faith for science.
    The 3rd level references of just this article exceed 250 in number. And then there are lab reports, presentations, dissertations etc., These aren't Dembski/Luskin like whines and sermons. This is science. That's why creationists gnash their teeth in helpless rage; the battle ended decades ago. It is not even amusing anymore.

    And BTW If someone tossed an important part onto their car’s engine, and slammed down the hood, you wouldn’t expect it to work. And if it did work you’d be suspicious. The claim is either absurd or rigged.

    The cell isn't a car, the mitochondrion isn't some "important part", and analogies lead to dead ends. If someone claims that an experiment that involves chucking an alternator under the hood and slammking it down is the way to test a biological hypothesis, that person isn't being serious. Which is why you aren't including this in your next grant application.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Evolutionists are still stuck in the "cell is goo" mindset, rather than a workmanship of unparalleled proportions.

    They come up with a couple alternative explanations that are too general and expect us to be impressed. The White House did a better job selling Obamacare.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "And then there are lab reports, presentations, dissertations etc.,"

    Nice, so if i put into my science papers lot of tables, reports and numbers and if i mentioned only in few sentences about evolution, I would be a part of the "REAL SCIENCE"...

    ReplyDelete
  10. They come up with a couple alternative explanations that are too general and expect us to be impressed. The White House did a better job selling Obamacare.

    When a case has to be made to overhaul the world's most inefficient and ridiculously expensive system of healthcare (the US healthcare system) that spends three times per person and yet delivers the worst outcomes in the rich world, it is unlikely that science will ever be accepted by anything more than 40% of the US population. The fact that a self-made, accomplished and well read politician Obama is battling rumors about his ancestry and political leanings speaks very poorly of the quality of education in large parts of this country. India's prime minister is an economist of repute. Germany's Chancellor is a theoretical physicist, China fetes scientists from the world over (and even retained an Indian macro-economics expert for over ten years to overhaul its central bank) and distributes biographies of Nobelists to K-4 children at school. Our most popular woman politician thinks that Flintstones is a documentary, and some of our AGs are so deluded that they sue scientists they disagree with. you should know that science is no longer a US guided or dominated enterprise. For the last ten years it was simply funny when creationists attacked evolutionary biology. It's not funny anymore as US leadership in the sciences enters a period of irreversible decline.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Nice, so if i put into my science papers lot of tables, reports and numbers and if i mentioned only in few sentences about evolution, I would be a part of the "REAL SCIENCE"...

    Andrew, you can't fudge numbers, even f you have done a lot of experimental work. In fact if you tried doing it - tables, numbers and reports - the guffaws would be deafening! You know that as well as I do.

    ReplyDelete
  12. ibeck, its hard to sell something that's a fraud. Many people did not want Obamacare because we can't realistically pay for it. It was rammed through without people reading or understanding the details.... even the people who voted for it. Political power overrode the will of the people and common sense. Evolutionary theory rides on the same wave of ignorance of the details, unrealistic assumptions and political power.

    Evolutionists have such a hard time putting together origin of eukaryotes stories because they never evolved. Did it ever occur to any of you that if evolution really did occur, then the whole business of explaining evolution would be much less difficult?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Neal,
    "Did it ever occur to any of you that if evolution really did occur, then the whole business of explaining evolution would be much less difficult?"

    DId it ever occur to you that if gravity were real, this whole business of general relativity would be much less difficult?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Neal "Did it ever occur to any of you that if evolution really did occur, then the whole business of explaining evolution would be much less difficult?"

    Neal, did it ever occur to you that if computers were real, the business of explaining how they work would be much less difficult?

    Or that if financial transactions really did occur, then the whole business of explaining economics would be much less difficult?

    By the way, how's that easy iPod 'best fit' nested hierarchy coming along?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Tedford the idiot said...

    Evolutionary theory rides on the same wave of ignorance of the details, unrealistic assumptions and political power.


    Speaking of ignorance of details, aren't you the guy who thought 'Mitochondrial Eve' evidence meant there was only one female alive 100K years ago? The guy who can't undertstand how nested hierarchies are created despite having the process explained to him a dozen times?

    Evolutionists have such a hard time putting together origin of eukaryotes stories because they never evolved. Did it ever occur to any of you that if evolution really did occur, then the whole business of explaining evolution would be much less difficult?

    Ahhh...so in Tedford the Idiot land, the veracity of an event is directly correlated to how complicated it is to research and recreate. I guess that means WW2 never happened because we can't reconstruct every detail of the actions of every soldier in every battle. Right Tedford?

    ReplyDelete
  16. nanobot, there is a difference between a complex answer that is elegant and makes accurate predictions (General Relativity) and the childlike just-so stories of evolution that come dime a dozen that are difficult to put faith in.


    Derick, I'm not sure what you mean by saying computers are difficult to explain. Some of the logic takes time to learn, but it is all very precise and straightforward.

    The difficulties aren't in evolutionists explaining something complex that they know about. The difficulty is that they don't know the answer themselves and their interpretation of the evidence is like trying to explain Mount Rushmore by only using purely natural and unintelligent forces to do. It gets more bizarre all the time.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "Ahhh...so in Tedford the Idiot land, the veracity of an event is directly correlated to how complicated it is to research and recreate. I guess that means WW2 never happened because we can't reconstruct every detail of the actions of every soldier in every battle. Right Tedford?"
    Ad hominem attack, nothing more... Nice try by the way, but this war was quite complexed thing, didn't it. WW2 was designed by men from USSR's Politburo. They used usefel idiot, Hilter. They give him oil, steel and proving grounds where he could learn Bliztkrieg tactics etc. And next they've singed Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact to fulfill their all promises.

    Another Dawkins-like commnents, which aren't adds anything to the discussion. I will be waiting for some one who gives some real arguments which are convicts endosymbiotic theory or being against it.

    ReplyDelete
  18. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Tedford the idiot said...

    nanobot, there is a difference between a complex answer that is elegant and makes accurate predictions (General Relativity) and the childlike just-so stories of evolution that come dime a dozen that are difficult to put faith in.


    There's an even bigger difference between an informed, intelligent critique of an idea based on understanding and the blustering empty protests made by a woefully scientifically ignorant pastor because his religious beliefs are threatened.

    How's that single, best fit nested hierarchy of iPods coming there Tedford?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Neal,
    "nanobot, there is a difference between a complex answer that is elegant and makes accurate predictions (General Relativity) and the childlike just-so stories of evolution that come dime a dozen that are difficult to put faith in."

    Do you really think that Lynn Margulis just made up endosymbiotic theory and it was blindly accepted by biologists without a shred of evidence?

    ReplyDelete
  21. nanobot74, since evolution is assumed to be a fact, then he who can tell a good story wins the day. Like the sea sponge mentioned in a previous article. It's phylogenetic tree was obvious until they sequenced its genetic code. If you want to believe it then you'll be persuaded by confirmation bias.

    Andrew, my point was that evolutionists need to step back and consider the other possibility as to why their having so much difficulty. It is akin to physicists insisting that Newtonian physicists just needs a little tweeking to make it fit into quantum and cosmic calculations. Evolutionary theory has come to it limits of explanation and these guys are grasping for straws. It's time think outside the suffocating box of evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Neal,
    "since evolution is assumed to be a fact, then he who can tell a good story wins the day."
    so you do think Margulis just made up a story and everyone ran with it bc it sounded cool. if you're at all interested in educating yourself, you can try Wikipedia for a start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiotic_theory. In fact Margulis is an excellent example of someone "thinking outside the box" and convincing others to do so through experimentation, data collection, hypothesis testing, etc. You know, science.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Neal Tedford said:
    "Evolutionary theory has come to it limits of explanation and these guys are grasping for straws."

    I've learned about this limits many times when i was graduating from medical academy therefore i'm agreeing with you from the beginning of the topic.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Neal states:"Did it ever occur to any of you that if evolution really did occur, then the whole business of explaining evolution would be much less difficult? "

    Actually, yes, that has occurred to me before. Then I thought about it and realised how stupid a thought that really was. Why would the reconstruction of billions of years of biological and biogeographic history, with all of its contingencies that we can only infer from what we observe now, be easy to reconstruct? The complete history of life on earth is enormously complex, and we only have tiny glimpses of the past with which we can infer what has happened. But we are progressing.

    We have no cure for the flu; for the most part, we can only offer temporary relief for its symptoms and try to prevent secondary infections. We have limited success with some cancers, but no cure either. One could say that because of these things, medicine is futile. But this would be unfair, because, as with evolution, we are progressing in these fields. To focus exclusively on what we don't know would be to ignore the other enormous gains in health and longevity that have been made in the last hundred years.

    So why does evolution get your attention, and not medicine? Medicine is fortunate in that it deals with present-day issues and centres on a single species, with limited interest in the relatively few other species which that single species interacts. Evolution's problems originate billions of years ago and involve countless species, most of which are extinct. So why the focus on evolution's knowledge gaps?

    I know of only one reason that you single out evolution for this type of criticism, and it has nothing to do with logic.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Neal Tedford: my point was that evolutionists need to step back and consider the other possibility as to why their having so much difficulty. It is akin to physicists insisting that Newtonian physicists just needs a little tweeking to make it fit into quantum and cosmic calculations. Evolutionary theory has come to it limits of explanation and these guys are grasping for straws. It's time think outside the suffocating box of evolution.

    We're all for thinking outside the box, but that hasn't been your position thus far. You haven't been saying that the Theory of Evolution is largely explanatory, but may not be correct within certain domains. Rather, you've been claiming that evolution never happened, evolutionists are still stuck in the "cell is goo" mindset, and other nonsense that reveals more about your own ignorance than any limitations to the Theory.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Neal, please present us with your iPod nested hierarchy. It's taking a long time for such an easy task.

    ReplyDelete
  27. tedford the idiot said...

    Andrew, my point was that evolutionists need to step back and consider the other possibility as to why their having so much difficulty. It is akin to physicists insisting that Newtonian physicists just needs a little tweeking to make it fit into quantum and cosmic calculations. Evolutionary theory has come to it limits of explanation and these guys are grasping for straws. It's time think outside the suffocating box of evolution.


    Tedford, what is your scientific training and experience in evolutionary biology that qualifies you to lecture professional scientific researchers on how they should and should not be approaching their job?

    If you aren't qualified to speak on the topic, why should anyone give your cockamamie bluster the slightest notice?

    ReplyDelete
  28. I don't see how saying that the proteins in question evolved from other proteins helps much. Proteins can be up to 20% different in their amino acid sequence yet still be called closely homologous. Proteins that have similar shapes yet have avery different amino acid sequence can be called homologous. So you still have to change the a lot of amino acids in very specific ways to go from one protein to another. The chances of this happening rapidly become pretty slim.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Cornelius claims :"Perhaps the chances of the mitochondria evolving were high. Perhaps the brilliant eukaryotic power house is a no-brainer. But if so do not evolutionists think twice about their story? When they claim that the evolution of some marvel is easy, they are just bumping the problem back a few spaces where it is out of sight. "

    Absolutely not true, and a wholesale misrepresentation of evolutionary theory.

    Endosymbiosis is an exceedingly rare event. This indicates the very opposite of your above statement. It is a very unlikely occurrence - the chance of this type of thing happening are very low. Rather than being "easy" it is "hard", although the terminology itself is also quite a poor choice. I'm not aware of the "easy" claim is made anywhere in the literature.

    ReplyDelete
  30. natschuster: So you still have to change the a lot of amino acids in very specific ways to go from one protein to another.

    'A lot' isn't very precise. Give us a guess as to how many amino acids you have to change to get a different protein.

    natschuster: The chances of this happening rapidly become pretty slim.

    Are they? What are those chances? Give us a number, and the probability calculations to support that number.

    ReplyDelete
  31. If the protein is 100 amino acids long, and 20% would be 20 proteins. The chances of that happening are 1 to 20^20.

    ReplyDelete
  32. And the fact that more than one protein is needed makes it even more unlikely.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Yoni said...

    If the protein is 100 amino acids long, and 20% would be 20 proteins. The chances of that happening are 1 to 20^20.


    The chances that you pulled that number straight out of your rectum are 1 in 1.

    Please provide your calculations and the basis for the values you used.

    ReplyDelete
  34. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  35. natschuster said...

    I don't see how saying that the proteins in question evolved from other proteins helps much. Proteins can be up to 20% different in their amino acid sequence yet still be called closely homologous. Proteins that have similar shapes yet have avery different amino acid sequence can be called homologous. So you still have to change the a lot of amino acids in very specific ways to go from one protein to another. The chances of this happening rapidly become pretty slim.


    Nat, no scientist thinks one modern protein had to change into another modern protein. That's as dumb as expecting a modern cat to evolve into a modern dog. Homologous proteins, just like cats and dogs, shared a common ancestor in the distant past.

    Your inability to grasp even the simplest of evolutionary concepts is just amazing.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Yoni states:"If the protein is 100 amino acids long, and 20% would be 20 proteins. The chances of that happening are 1 to 20^20."

    I'm not sure precisely what you're trying to do here... But what you've calculated are the odds that an exact 20 precisely prespecified amino acid changes occur in a protein coding sequence exclusively by genetic drift.

    In other words, what you've got there are some numbers on the back of an envelope, divorced in every meaningful sense from the natural world. I hope you see the problem with your calculation.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Guys, it doesn't matter what evidence you find against evolution. The Dodos(Darwin Only Darwin Only - to borrow a phrase of a friend from crev.info)KNOW that it had to have happened without any outside intervention or intelligence so they feel they are justified in making up another just so story to try and make the new discovery fit.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Yoni: If the protein is 100 amino acids long, and 20% would be 20 proteins. The chances of that happening are 1 to 20^20.

    Yoni, I can't tell if that's a sincere answerer, or if you're being sarcastic and posting something ridiculous on purpose. I've made the mistake before of replying to posts that were trying to be humorously stupid as if they were genuine comments. Which one is yours?

    ReplyDelete
  39. tokyojim: Guys, it doesn't matter what evidence you find against evolution. The Dodos(Darwin Only Darwin Only - to borrow a phrase of a friend from crev.info)KNOW that it had to have happened without any outside intervention or intelligence so they feel they are justified in making up another just so story to try and make the new discovery fit.

    tokyojim, that's absurd. There are many people (including myself) who have both fully accepted Christianity, and fully accepted that evolution is currently the best explanation for the diversity of life. I'm fine with, and would prefer the idea that God directly intervened in creation; but the evidence as of yet doesn't support that conclusion. Around 40% of scientists profess to believe in a personal God. You'll find people who accept evolution from many faith traditions, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, etc.

    You've actually got it backwards, and your comment is a perfect example of psychological projection. It is the Creationists who know beforehand that God must have intervened. It is the Creationists who distort science to try to make it fit their 'theory'. (And they pretty much always fail miserably.)

    ReplyDelete
  40. just like cats and dogs, shared a common ancestor in the distant past.


    This could be 2 in 1 solution for people who like cats and dogs.


    Derick
    here is one of humorously stupid ones.I hope it is homorous, I know it is stupid.
    We have to lighten up here a bit.

    About Yoni's calculation : I don't know if you can be too humorously stupid with math. Seems like straight and possible answer with a sprinkle of rectum from Thorton's mouth.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Yoni: If the protein is 100 amino acids long, and 20% would be 20 proteins. The chances of that happening are 1 to 20^20.

    Just so we can understand your calculation. If we take a sequence of 100 random amino acids, what are the odds of it folding into a functional protein?

    ReplyDelete
  42. tokyojim said...

    Guys, it doesn't matter what evidence you find against evolution. The Dodos(Darwin Only Darwin Only - to borrow a phrase of a friend from crev.info)KNOW that it had to have happened without any outside intervention or intelligence so they feel they are justified in making up another just so story to try and make the new discovery fit.


    Big time FAIL there Jim. No one KNOWS (i.e. 100% sure) that that life had to have happened without any outside intervention or intelligence. It's just there is ZERO evidence for outside intervention or intelligence being involved, and TONS of evidence that such outside involvement wasn't required.

    Science goes with the evidence at hand. It's a simple concept you Creationists just can't seem to grasp.

    ReplyDelete
  43. "It is the Creationists who distort science to try to make it fit their 'theory'. (And they pretty much always fail miserably.)"

    Wow, someone missed the point of this entire blog. Why does this not surprise me?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Darren said...

    Wow, someone missed the point of this entire blog. Why does this not surprise me?


    So what is the point of this blog?

    AFAICT it is to give the scientifically ignorant Fundy IDCers a place to rant and scream and vent their spleens so they can forget about their scientific impotence and irrelevance for a while.

    See Tedford, Eocene, Joe G, etc. for prime examples.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Zachriel,

    I'd like to continue on the topic of nested hierarchies and explain how designed products can be grouped are grouped into a best fit structure.

    We discussed putting vehicles into a nested hierarchy structure, but I'd like to use a smaller product line to help you understand that designed products can have a "best fit". The Apple IPOD product line is a good example of products that can be arranged in a best fit hierarchy. Let's use the current product line of one company (Apple)to keep things simple.

    The Apple IPODS are all portable multimedia players. The current IPOD product line shares much of the same hardware and software technologies. The "options" available are noted below.

    IPOD Shuffle comes in 5 colors.

    IPOD Nano comes in 7 colors and either 8gb/ 16gb

    IPOD Classic comes in 2 colors.

    IPOD Touch comes in 1 color and either 8/32/64gb

    A simplified nested hierarchy example would look like this:

    Blue Shuffle > Shuffle > IPOD

    ReplyDelete
  46. Neal: The Apple IPOD product line is a good example of products that can be arranged in a best fit hierarchy.

    Ok, Neal, let's take a look at a few examples. First, let's start of with one that's easy: which two of the following group closest together?

    iPod example 1

    ReplyDelete
  47. http://www.boingboing.net/2010/11/16/molecular-animators.html


    Mitochondria animation-excellent quality.

    ReplyDelete
  48. "a place to rant and scream and vent.."


    I think everyone can see who likes to come here and do those things.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Derick, the selection criteria is only for Apples current product line of IPOD's. If you want to see what the current line of products are and there specs simply visit apple.com

    The current Shuffle's are exactly the same except they come in different colors.

    ReplyDelete
  50. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Neal: Derick, the selection criteria is only for Apples current product line of IPOD's.

    Sorry Neal, that's just not how it works. That's like saying you only need to consider extant organisms for a nested hierarchy, and that extinct species don't have to fit. You'd burst a gasket (and rightly so) if Zachriel said we could ignore 95% of the data. Only in this case, I made sure you had complete knowledge of all iPods that have ever 'lived'. If we can throw out all iPods that aren't currently in stores, why can't we just throw out all iPods that aren't nanos? That would make things easy, right?

    {silver nano, graphite nano, blue nano, green nano, orange nano, pink nano, Product Red nano}

    Like I said, we'll start with one that's really easy.

    which two of those three group closest together?

    ReplyDelete
  52. Considering Johnnym's recent contribution to UD, it seems to be Mitochondria Week on the Creationist Channel.

    Rather than "out of sight", as Dr Hunter insinuated, real science and real scientists are happy to discuss what kind of prokaryotes went into making the eukaryote symbiosis. (or perhaps "out of sight" is how Dr Hunter pronounces "amazon.com http://www.amazon.com/Power-Sex-Suicide-Mitochondria-Meaning/dp/0199205647)

    Nick Lane (one of the authors of the review article discussed by johnnym) has a book titled "Power, Sex, and Suicide" all about the mitochondria. His chapter on origin theories should be quite helpful to anyone trying to understand this unique event.

    Everyone else, please continue singing "lalala, I can't hear you!"

    ReplyDelete
  53. http://www.boingboing.net/2010/11/16/molecular-animators.html


    Mitochondria animation-excellent quality.


    Did anybody see the video? Structures in this video look pretty structural, me would say.

    Some really cool looking and operating chemicals. Specially ATP synthase!

    ReplyDelete
  54. I said: why can't we just throw out all iPods that aren't nanos? That would make things easy, right?

    {silver nano, graphite nano, blue nano, green nano, orange nano, pink nano, Product Red nano}


    Oh, wait. My mistake. I guess it would be something more like:

    {{silver 8GB nano, silver 16GB nano}{graphite 8GB nano, graphite 16GB nano}{blue 8GB nano, blue 16GB nano}{green 8GB nano, green 16GB nano}
    {orange 8GB nano, orange 16GB nano}{pink 8GB nano, pink 16GB nano}{Red 8GB nano, Red 16GB nano}}

    ReplyDelete
  55. Err, no I guess it would be:

    {{silver 8GB nano, graphite 8GB nano, blue 8GB nano, green 8GB nano, orange 8GB nano, pink 8GB nano, Red 8GB nano}{silver 16GB nano, graphite 16GB nano, blue 16GB nano, green 16GB nano, orange 16GB nano, pink 16GB nano, Red 16GB nano}}

    ReplyDelete
  56. I apologize Neal, I admit I'm new at this nested hierarchy thing. Should we group nanos by color, or by capacity? Which one is more important?
    I know that dolphins have a streamlined body and fins like a shark, even down to a triangular dorsal fin, but dolphins are still grouped with mammals for some reason. They must have more 'mammal-like' features than 'fish-like' features, or at least more important ones.

    So what other features of iPod nanos should we used to decide if an 8GB blue groups more closely with an 8GB pink or a 16GB blue?

    You know what? Having 14 different models (not counting engraving options) to choose from may be a bit too complicated for now. Let's start off with the minimum number: Three.

    Which two of these three should be grouped closest together?

    I'm only asking you to evaluate 3 models, not 14+. Like I said, this one should be pretty easy.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Derick, we could just as easily go back in time to when only the first generation of ipods were available. So, what would be your point then? I just wanted to keep things simple to show that designed objects can be grouped into a best fit hierarchy. You illustrated a grouping of IPOD Nano's and so proved that designed objects can be arranged nicely into a group.

    To continue to insist that designed products could NEVER be arranged into a best fit nested hierarchy is complete nonsense.

    I don't believe that God, the creator, created new life forms because he discovered better technologies as he went along (like Apple). I believe he designed the timing of the introduction of various life forms to build the infrastruture and ecosystems that would sustain life today. First life was complex and prokaryotes and eukaryotes still play an important role in the world today. They were designed for a purpose and they were and still are well suited for life. Apple Computer would prefer that everyone scrap all their old stuff and keep buying new.

    God's design was so good that he built a multitude of different creatures using the same genetic code and similar patterns. It is a mark of genius to be able to build land, air, and water mammals from a similar plan. It is a signature of efficiency that human designers could learn more from when they are developing their product lines.

    Human design and manufacturing efficency increase greatly when designs and parts can be reused on various products and models.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Tedford the idiot said...

    Derick, we could just as easily go back in time to when only the first generation of ipods were available. So, what would be your point then? I just wanted to keep things simple to show that designed objects can be grouped into a best fit hierarchy.


    When will you be doing that Tedford? So far we've see numerous nested hierarchies and no reason to think one is 'best fit' over all the others.

    To continue to insist that designed products could NEVER be arranged into a best fit nested hierarchy is complete nonsense.

    No one said NEVER Tedford. An omnipotent designer could certainly create objects and plant fake evidence that made it look as though they evolved through branching evolutionary processes. But now you're back to the 'Loki God' argument, that the designer went out of his way to make it look like evolution happened.

    Is that really what you want to argue?

    ReplyDelete
  59. Derick, men's and womens brains are somewhat different (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/04/990422061106.htm)... "Men and women's brains are distinctly different. While men have more neurons in the cerebral cortex, the brain's outer layer, women have more neuropil, which contains the processes allowing cell communication. " People have differing mental capacities and number of neurons.

    So, how would you group two white men and two black women? By skin color or genetic differences in brains? Perhaps those with the closest fingerprints should be grouped. What is the "objective" and singular in this case?

    It would seem like the classification of Nanos would be immensely simpler.

    Like Zachriel, your not being consistent.

    Then again, when evolutionists in the past who started measuring brain capacity among "races" were pretty scary.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Tedford the idiot said...

    So, how would you group two white men and two black women? By skin color or genetic differences in brains? Perhaps those with the closest fingerprints should be grouped. What is the "objective" and singular in this case?


    Non-sequitur. Members of the group "two white men and two black women" don't have an evolutionary ancestor-descendant relationship with each other. Any grouping of the four will be subjective and arbitrary, just like your iPods.

    It would seem like the classification of Nanos would be immensely simpler

    Yet you still can't show us the 'best fit' nested hierarchy of iPods you keep crowing about.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Neal: Derick, the selection criteria is only for Apples current product line of IPOD's.

    Alright Neal, you win. Let's not consider any other iPods except current ones, to be as absolutely simple as possible.

    Heck, let's go one step further and only consider 3 lines.

    Heck, let's go one more step further and only consider one model from each of those lines. (we can't go lower than 3 for comparison, obviously)

    So I literally don't know how to make this simpler.

    Which two of these three current iPods group closest together: iPod Example 2

    Again, this is as simple as it can possibly get.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Remember Neal, this is YOUR example, made to fit precisely YOUR narrow criteria. Don't even try to wriggle out of answering.
    It could not possibly be a simpler, more straightforward question. Which two group closest together?

    ReplyDelete
  63. And Neal, not to spoil it for you, but this one isn't hard.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Derick, seriously? The Shuffles would be grouped together, as Apple Company, Walmart, and other retailers do already. Except for a couple memory options and color all Shuffles are exactly the same. You're right, it is very straightforward grouping.

    How would you group a white man, a white women, a black man, and a black women? By skin color or genetic differences in brains? Perhaps those with the closest fingerprints should be grouped. What is the "objective" and singular in this case?"

    I might add, what if they all had tatoo's? Would you group by similar engravings? Could you not group them if they all had different tatoo's?

    What about red heads? How would you group a male orangutan, a bald male, and a red headed woman? This is how silly your questions are becoming.

    It would seem like the classification of Nanos and Shuffles would be immensely simpler.

    What I think you are doing is accepting many variations within living species (color, mental capacity, tatoo's, facial features, etc) but straining at even the tiniest differences within human designed objects. The tiniest differences within designed objects supposedly make classification arbitrary, but not within species. It is a curious thought process. Like Zachariel, you are not being consistent.

    Apparently you believe that all designed objects could NEVER be grouped into a best fit nested hierarchy. Yes? No?

    ReplyDelete
  65. Neal: The Shuffles would be grouped together, as Apple Company, Walmart, and other retailers do already. Except for a couple memory options and color all Shuffles are exactly the same. You're right, it is very straightforward grouping.

    O.k., good. I just want to make sure we're on the same page. I take it that you would group my example:

    {{1, 2} 3}

    The same way as if you had dolphin, cat, fish, you would group them:

    {{dolphin, cat} fish}

    I just want to make sure I understand you correctly. If I misunderstood, let me know and then I'll be glad to answer your questions.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Neal Tedford: How would you group a white man, a white women, a black man, and a black women? By skin color or genetic differences in brains? Perhaps those with the closest fingerprints should be grouped. What is the "objective" and singular in this case?

    Individual members of a population usually don't form nested hierarchies. (Male-specific and female-specific traits may within family groupings.) But if you have cats, dolphins and fish, there is only one reasonable biological classification.

    Neal Tedford: Apparently you believe that all designed objects could NEVER be grouped into a best fit nested hierarchy. Yes? No?

    Of course they can sometimes. But as you don't understand classification or nested hierarchies, you are unable to make the distinction. It has to do with the crossing of defining traits across sets.

    ReplyDelete
  67. I'm the Yoni above.

    What I meant to say above was 20 amino acids, not proteins. It was a typo. I don't see any math errors.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Paul:

    If the twenty amino acids are critical, then they all have to change at the same time, or there is no benefit. I don't know what genetic drift has to do with anything.

    Zachriel:

    I don't see the relevance of the chances of an amino acid folding.

    ReplyDelete
  69. The authors in the article said that one protein changed into another. I'm asking whether that is likely, or even possible. IMHO, to naswer this question, we have to determine how many amino acids had to change, and how what are the chances. I'm aware of the fact that my calculation is a naive one.

    ReplyDelete
  70. I know this sounds bad but hopefully were all adults. I once had a dream that my penis fell off, and I didn't know what to do so I stuffed it back down my pants and hoped it would reattach itself. When I woke up the next morning it was still there and working quite well If I have to say so myself.

    The moral of the story is that the evolutionary hypothesis mentioned above is very possible..... in their dreams.

    ReplyDelete
  71. themayan:

    "I know this sounds bad but hopefully were all adults. I once had a dream that my penis fell off, and I didn't know what to do so I stuffed it back down my pants and hoped it would reattach itself. When I woke up the next morning it was still there and working quite well If I have to say so myself.

    The moral of the story is that the evolutionary hypothesis mentioned above is very possible..... in their dreams."
    ======

    Interesting. And all done with a Thortonian twist as a sort of common ground olive branch extenssion ???

    Hmmmmmmmmmm ???

    ReplyDelete
  72. Neal Tedford: I don't see the relevance of the chances of an amino acid folding.

    Folding is how a sequence of amino acids becomes a three-dimensional, functional protein. We'll rephrase the question.

    If we take a sequence of 80 random amino acids, what are the odds of it being a functional protein?

    ReplyDelete
  73. Neal: "Derick, seriously? The Shuffles [plural] would be grouped together, as Apple Company, Walmart, and other retailers do already. Except for a couple memory options and color all Shuffles are exactly the same. You're right, it is very straightforward grouping." (Emphasis and brackets mine)

    So, based on this chart, the grouping would be {{1 (shuffle), 2 (shuffle)}3 (touch)}

    Neal, if this was so straightforward, how did you manage to get it so spectacularly wrong? You mistook the iPod nano(2) for an iPod shuffle(1), even after I clearly explained that we were going to look at three different lines of iPods! Sure, the nano(2) may look like the shuffle(1) on the outside, (like a dolphin looks like a fish on the outside) but the nano(2) shares an extraordinary number of major under-the-hood-features with the touch(3):

    2 and 3 (nano and touch) both have color displays; 1(shuffle) does not
    2 and 3 both support photos; 1 does not
    2 and 3 both support Nike + iPod; 1 does not
    2 and 3 both lack physical play/navigation buttons; 1 does not
    2 and 3 both have touch navigation; 1 does not
    2 and 3 both have visual clock features; 1 does not
    2 and 3 both have two small, close together volume buttons on the side, 1 has them far apart on the front.
    2 and 3 both can emit light; 1 does not
    2 and 3 both have dock connectors; 1 does not
    2 and 3 both hold 8GB of media; 1 only holds 2
    2 and 3 both have the ability to listen to audio over the air; 1 does not
    2 and 3 both can change the orientation of their playback controls; 1 can't
    2 and 3 both have accelerometers; 1 does not
    2 and 3 both have user configurable maximum volume limits; 1 does not
    2 and 3 both have the iTunes Genius feature; 1 does not
    2 and 3 both have a battery indicator; 1 does not.
    2 and 3 both work with standard iPod car chargers; 1 does not.

    So with that many features that 2 and 3 have in common, Why on earth would you group 1 and 2 together? Because they look similar on the outside? If that's the case, why not group dolphins and fish together? And this was the easiest possible configuration to evaluate, with the bare minimum number of samples, from a product line YOU picked.

    Want to try again? I'll give you one more guess. Which two of the three group closest together based on features?
    (I've practically given you the answer, so I hope you don't get it wrong the second time)

    ReplyDelete
  74. themayan

    Funny!

    Don't forget to change your name in 2012!

    ReplyDelete