tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post7707703787419146870..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Pyruvate Dehydrogenase EvolutionLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-70518197488842977882011-12-10T01:48:42.239-05:002011-12-10T01:48:42.239-05:00Hi. I'd love your opinion on one issue: Pyruva...Hi. I'd love your opinion on one issue: Pyruvate Dehydrogenase is intra-mitochondrial in eukaryotes, and is a main constituent of the envelope of Mycobacteria. With the common perception of mitochondria originating from a prokaryote who became intra-cellular to eukaryotes, it stands to reason to entertain the notion that pyruvate dehydrogenase came along with it (see this for further thoughts: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v396/n6707/abs/396133a0.html).<br />My question is - what would such a scheme mean for Acetyl CoA biosynthesis? Could eukaryotes have gotten along before?אילן ריכטרhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07932263182684925241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-71770749734129968262007-04-23T09:22:00.000-04:002007-04-23T09:22:00.000-04:00If there ever was an outstanding argument from ign...If there ever was an outstanding argument from ignorance, the above comment is it. Not only can't the commenter distinguish between science ('evolutionists', 'propaganda'), he can't discuss the science on the table.<BR/><BR/>Please explain why then biology predicts a nested hierarchy (of a phylogenetic tree) and finds it, it isn't clear evidence for the science in question? <BR/><BR/>This unrooted E2 tree has 34 branches, which means the ability of finding it (and, I assume, a few almost as likely alternatives) without leaving unconnected branches is a verified falsifiable prediction with an imprecision on the order of 10^-43. (According to the Phylogenetic Trees Calculator on http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html )<BR/><BR/>The commenter can put his/hers hands over the eyes and go "la-la-la". The rest of us will put another couple of clear examples on the "evidence" pile. <BR/><BR/>Here is a fun picture of the amount of "la-la-la" one must make in order to reject the main part of biology:<BR/><BR/>A course estimate of a 100 biology papers on evolution each year for 150 years, each with 10 pages (and 10 such evidences as above), will now yield a pile of evidence on paper 30 m high containing more than ~ 100 000 verified predictions. (At 0.2 mm/page) <BR/><BR/>But I expect the real numbers may be couple of magnitudes larger.Torbjörn Larssonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02022193326058378221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-37307568168815819072007-04-23T08:07:00.000-04:002007-04-23T08:07:00.000-04:00The article reveals complexity that could never ha...The article reveals complexity that could never have happened by chance. Evolutionists believe in miracles.<BR/><BR/>Many people, when they can't provide evidence for their theory, adopt the strategy of falsehood. Such is the case with many of those who have fallen victim to the propaganda of renowned evolutionists. <BR/><BR/>If evolutionists want to end the arguments all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a 'simple' living cell. This should be possible, since they certainly have a very great amount of knowledge about what is inside the 'simple' cell. <BR/> <BR/>After all, shouldn't all the combined Intelligence of all the worlds scientist be able the do what chance encounters with random chemicals, without a set of instructions, accomplished about 4 billion years ago,according to the evolutionists, having no intelligence at all available to help them along in their quest to become a living entity. Surely then the evolutionists scientists today should be able to make us a 'simple' cell.<BR/> <BR/>If it weren't so pitiful it would be humorous, that intelligent people have swallowed the evolution mythology.<BR/> <BR/>Beyond doubt, the main reason people believe in evolution is that sources they admire, say it is so. It would pay for these people to do a thorough examination of all the evidence CONTRARY to evolution that is readily available: Try answersingenesis.org. The evolutionists should honestly examine the SUPPOSED evidence 'FOR' evolution for THEMSELVES.<BR/> <BR/>Build us a cell, from scratch, with the required raw material, that is with NO cell material, just the 'raw' stuff, and the argument is over. But if the scientists are unsuccessful, perhaps they should try Mother Earth's recipe, you know, the one they claim worked the first time about 4 billion years ago, so they say. All they need to do is to gather all the chemicals that we know are essential for life, pour them into a large clay pot and stir vigorously for a few billion years, and Walla, LIFE!<BR/> <BR/>Oh, you don't believe the 'original' Mother Earth recipe will work? You are NOT alone, Neither do I, and MILLIONS of others!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com