tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post2343464019112619527..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: How the Eukaryote Got its MitochondriaUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger77125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-79789846571208771182017-05-30T06:51:22.230-07:002017-05-30T06:51:22.230-07:00I see no contention between scientists who can exp...I see no contention between scientists who can explain a little of God's workings and God himself. What certainly does baffle me is that anybody could possibly imagine all the aspects of Creation happened by chance, this takes a helluva lot more belief than believing in the Almighty.IHateTheIlluminatihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02719602230358441368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-86830771890366083142010-11-18T15:59:34.444-08:002010-11-18T15:59:34.444-08:00Zachriel:
I don't know.Zachriel:<br /><br />I don't know.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-57973187690544745632010-11-18T10:17:04.933-08:002010-11-18T10:17:04.933-08:00themayan
Funny!
Don't forget to change your ...themayan<br /><br />Funny!<br /><br />Don't forget to change your name in 2012!Eugenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15513772766225981430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-59153834094046048482010-11-18T08:16:33.101-08:002010-11-18T08:16:33.101-08:00Neal: "Derick, seriously? The Shuffles [plura...<b>Neal:</b> <i>"Derick, <b>seriously?</b> The <b>Shuffles [plural] would be grouped together</b>, as Apple Company, Walmart, and other retailers do already. Except for a couple memory options and color all Shuffles <b>are exactly the same.</b> You're right, it is very <b>straightforward grouping.</b>" </i> (Emphasis and brackets mine)<br /><br />So, based on <a href="http://www.derickchildress.com/ipodexample2.jpg" rel="nofollow">this chart,</a> the grouping would be {{1 (shuffle), 2 (shuffle)}3 (touch)}<br /><br />Neal, if this was so <i>straightforward,</i> 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 <i>look</i> like the shuffle(1) on the outside, (like a dolphin <i>looks</i> like a fish on the outside) but the nano(2) shares an extraordinary number of major under-the-hood-features with the touch(3):<br /><br />2 and 3 (nano and touch) both have color displays; 1(shuffle) does not<br />2 and 3 both support photos; 1 does not<br />2 and 3 both support Nike + iPod; 1 does not<br />2 and 3 both lack physical play/navigation buttons; 1 does not<br />2 and 3 both have touch navigation; 1 does not<br />2 and 3 both have visual clock features; 1 does not<br />2 and 3 both have two small, close together volume buttons on the side, 1 has them far apart on the front.<br />2 and 3 both can emit light; 1 does not<br />2 and 3 both have dock connectors; 1 does not<br />2 and 3 both hold 8GB of media; 1 only holds 2<br />2 and 3 both have the ability to listen to audio over the air; 1 does not<br />2 and 3 both can change the orientation of their playback controls; 1 can't<br />2 and 3 both have accelerometers; 1 does not<br />2 and 3 both have user configurable maximum volume limits; 1 does not<br />2 and 3 both have the iTunes Genius feature; 1 does not<br />2 and 3 both have a battery indicator; 1 does not.<br />2 and 3 both work with standard iPod car chargers; 1 does not.<br /><br />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 <i>easiest possible</i> configuration to evaluate, with the bare minimum number of samples, from a product line <b>YOU</b> picked.<br /><br />Want to try again? I'll give you one more guess. Which two of the three group closest together based on features?<br /> (I've practically given you the answer, so I hope you don't get it wrong the second time)Derick Childresshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04957020457782757629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-88032597543171442302010-11-18T06:48:20.799-08:002010-11-18T06:48:20.799-08:00Neal Tedford: I don't see the relevance of the...<b>Neal Tedford</b>: <i>I don't see the relevance of the chances of an amino acid folding. </i><br /><br />Folding is how a sequence of amino acids becomes a three-dimensional, functional protein. We'll rephrase the question. <br /><br />If we take a sequence of 80 random amino acids, what are the odds of it being a functional protein?Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-5028186612316992902010-11-17T23:39:08.965-08:002010-11-17T23:39:08.965-08:00themayan:
"I know this sounds bad but hopefu...themayan:<br /><br />"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.<br /><br />The moral of the story is that the evolutionary hypothesis mentioned above is very possible..... in their dreams."<br />======<br /><br />Interesting. And all done with a Thortonian twist as a sort of common ground olive branch extenssion ??? <br /><br />Hmmmmmmmmmm ???Eocenehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08897350463133321355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-10212857415390190332010-11-17T20:40:55.069-08:002010-11-17T20:40:55.069-08:00I know this sounds bad but hopefully were all adul...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.<br /><br />The moral of the story is that the evolutionary hypothesis mentioned above is very possible..... in their dreams.themayanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17157803672224355942noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-76640122854399840472010-11-17T18:07:52.038-08:002010-11-17T18:07:52.038-08:00The authors in the article said that one protein c...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.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-44508480566593230262010-11-17T18:04:38.919-08:002010-11-17T18:04:38.919-08:00Paul:
If the twenty amino acids are critical, the...Paul:<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Zachriel:<br /><br />I don't see the relevance of the chances of an amino acid folding.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-59276867788842327222010-11-17T17:59:50.779-08:002010-11-17T17:59:50.779-08:00I'm the Yoni above.
What I meant to say above...I'm the Yoni above.<br /><br />What I meant to say above was 20 amino acids, not proteins. It was a typo. I don't see any math errors.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-71152508240636484672010-11-17T15:18:59.113-08:002010-11-17T15:18:59.113-08:00Neal Tedford: How would you group a white man, a w...<b>Neal Tedford</b>: <i>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><br /><br />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. <br /><br /><b>Neal Tedford</b>: <i>Apparently you believe that all designed objects could NEVER be grouped into a best fit nested hierarchy. Yes? No? </i><br /><br />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.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-87410415015519495552010-11-17T13:59:11.133-08:002010-11-17T13:59:11.133-08:00Neal: The Shuffles would be grouped together, as A...<b>Neal:</b> <i>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. </i><br /><br />O.k., good. I just want to make sure we're on the same page. I take it that you would group my example:<br /><br />{{1, 2} 3}<br /><br />The same way as if you had dolphin, cat, fish, you would group them:<br /><br />{{dolphin, cat} fish}<br /><br />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.Derick Childresshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04957020457782757629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-47587454250283921672010-11-17T13:43:06.078-08:002010-11-17T13:43:06.078-08:00Derick, seriously? The Shuffles would be grouped ...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. <br /><br />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?"<br /><br />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? <br /><br />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.<br /><br />It would seem like the classification of Nanos and Shuffles would be immensely simpler. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />Apparently you believe that all designed objects could NEVER be grouped into a best fit nested hierarchy. Yes? No?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-34595819908366694412010-11-17T13:18:27.197-08:002010-11-17T13:18:27.197-08:00And Neal, not to spoil it for you, but this one is...And Neal, not to spoil it for you, but this one isn't hard.Derick Childresshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04957020457782757629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-72112304772395718392010-11-17T12:52:49.424-08:002010-11-17T12:52:49.424-08:00Remember Neal, this is YOUR example, made to fit p...Remember Neal, this is <b>YOUR</b> example, made to fit precisely <b>YOUR</b> narrow criteria. Don't even try to wriggle out of answering.<br />It could not possibly be a simpler, more straightforward question. Which two group closest together?Derick Childresshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04957020457782757629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-15726426743407225812010-11-17T12:47:05.127-08:002010-11-17T12:47:05.127-08:00Neal: Derick, the selection criteria is only for A...<b>Neal:</b> <i>Derick, the selection criteria is only for Apples <b>current product line</b> of IPOD's.</i><br /><br />Alright Neal, <b>you win.</b> Let's not consider <i>any</i> other iPods except <b>current</b> ones, to be as <b>absolutely simple as possible.</b><br /><br />Heck, let's go one step further and only consider 3 lines.<br /><br />Heck, let's go <i>one more</i> step further and only consider <i>one model</i> from each of those lines. (we can't go lower than 3 for comparison, obviously)<br /><br />So I literally don't know how to make this simpler.<br /><br />Which two of these three <i>current</i> iPods group closest together: <a href="http://www.derickchildress.com/ipodexample2.jpg" rel="nofollow">iPod Example 2</a><br /><br />Again, this is as simple as it can possibly get.Derick Childresshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04957020457782757629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-11114623827797808772010-11-17T12:25:48.017-08:002010-11-17T12:25:48.017-08:00Tedford the idiot said...
So, how would you group...<i>Tedford the idiot said...<br /><br />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?</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>It would seem like the classification of Nanos would be immensely simpler</i><br /><br />Yet you still can't show us the 'best fit' nested hierarchy of iPods you keep crowing about.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-36406294531450879612010-11-17T12:03:50.832-08:002010-11-17T12:03:50.832-08:00Derick, men's and womens brains are somewhat d...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. <br /><br />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?<br /><br />It would seem like the classification of Nanos would be immensely simpler.<br /><br />Like Zachriel, your not being consistent.<br /><br />Then again, when evolutionists in the past who started measuring brain capacity among "races" were pretty scary.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-76663596856838719172010-11-17T12:02:48.170-08:002010-11-17T12:02:48.170-08:00Tedford the idiot said...
Derick, we could ju...<i>Tedford the idiot said...<br /><br /> 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. </i><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>To continue to insist that designed products could NEVER be arranged into a best fit nested hierarchy is complete nonsense.</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br />Is that really what you want to argue?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-87974281171517417102010-11-17T11:42:12.293-08:002010-11-17T11:42:12.293-08:00Derick, we could just as easily go back in time to...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.<br /><br />To continue to insist that designed products could NEVER be arranged into a best fit nested hierarchy is complete nonsense.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />Human design and manufacturing efficency increase greatly when designs and parts can be reused on various products and models.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-78693519670453160062010-11-17T11:29:16.311-08:002010-11-17T11:29:16.311-08:00I apologize Neal, I admit I'm new at this nest...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?<br />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.<br /><br />So what <i>other</i> features of iPod nanos should we used to decide if an 8GB blue groups more closely with an 8GB pink or a 16GB blue?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Which two of <a href="http://www.derickchildress.com/ipodexample1.jpg" rel="nofollow">these three</a> should be grouped closest together?<br /><br />I'm only asking you to evaluate 3 models, not 14+. Like I said, this one should be pretty easy.Derick Childresshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04957020457782757629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-81852251644716618332010-11-17T11:24:46.080-08:002010-11-17T11:24:46.080-08:00Err, no I guess it would be:
{{silver 8GB nano, g...Err, no I guess it would be:<br /><br />{{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}}Derick Childresshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04957020457782757629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-18228857694867747112010-11-17T11:23:50.438-08:002010-11-17T11:23:50.438-08:00I said: why can't we just throw out all iPods...I said: <i> why can't we just throw out all iPods that aren't nanos? That would make things easy, right?<br /><br />{silver nano, graphite nano, blue nano, green nano, orange nano, pink nano, Product Red nano}</i><br /><br />Oh, wait. My mistake. I guess it would be something more like:<br /><br />{{silver 8GB nano, silver 16GB nano}{graphite 8GB nano, graphite 16GB nano}{blue 8GB nano, blue 16GB nano}{green 8GB nano, green 16GB nano}<br />{orange 8GB nano, orange 16GB nano}{pink 8GB nano, pink 16GB nano}{Red 8GB nano, Red 16GB nano}}Derick Childresshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04957020457782757629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-2286100701920345362010-11-17T10:58:13.399-08:002010-11-17T10:58:13.399-08:00http://www.boingboing.net/2010/11/16/molecular-ani...http://www.boingboing.net/2010/11/16/molecular-animators.html<br /><br /><br />Mitochondria animation-excellent quality.<br /><br /><br />Did anybody see the video? Structures in this video look pretty structural, me would say.<br /><br />Some really cool looking and operating chemicals. Specially ATP synthase!Eugenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15513772766225981430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-16540581030073023272010-11-17T10:56:37.220-08:002010-11-17T10:56:37.220-08:00Considering Johnnym's recent contribution to U...Considering Johnnym's recent contribution to UD, it seems to be Mitochondria Week on the Creationist Channel.<br /><br />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)<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Everyone else, please continue singing "lalala, I can't hear you!"Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09698934106397111684noreply@blogger.com