Nic Tamzek

Those were some great posts by theyeti.

IMO all "can't evolve outside the kind"-type arguments, whether kind=species/genus/phylum/whatever, or "new" information, or "novel" structures/organs, or here (new but predictable) "new" protein families, have the same general counterarguments:

1) "Kind" is vaguely defined and always retreats to a broader category under pressure.

2) Generally a careful search of the lit (or having someone like theyeti around) reveals that even observed or very directly deduced evolution exceeds the expectation of the creo in question.

3) For larger changes that occurred over immense periods of time, we can often find supporting evidence although obviously direct observation is impossible.

Generally after a fair amount of 2 & 3, #1 gets defined so broadly that you can say "look, even on your argument a huge amount of evolution is possible, e.g. apes to humans, fish to mammals, etc.", at which point you've won the argument.


It would also bear pointing out here that I don't even think that the distinction between protein "families" and "superfamilies" is at all clear. Isn't it just a cutoff, e.g. 50% similarity makes it a family and 25% a superfamily, or some such thing?

One of theyeti's examples was the proposal of a monomer (one protein) dimerizing (two proteins forming a larger structure) and then evolving into a new gene. This kind of thing appears to be absolutely rife.

My favorite example is the retracing of the evolution of dynein, which I describe <a href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=a2b1r5%241kk0%241%40yuggoth.ucsb.edu" target="_blank">here</a>.

Thanks, nic

Quetzal

Thanks everyone! I knew I could count on you all.

PZ, theyeti, nic, oolon, pseudobug: <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

&lt;Morpho straps on Sword of Truth to go forth and do battle with the forces of darkness.&gt;

Oh, BTW: OF COURSE he's full of feces. He's a creationist...