SIMPLE common anscestors had fewer but MORE COMPLEX systems: genomics

Although the supposed common anscestor of fungi, worms, flies and humans had far fewer systems than humans these systems were often (i) more complex and (ii) contained the components that seperately distinguish various higher taxa!This is a genomic comparison result based on the study of one of the largest superfamilies of proteins (kinases):Evolution of protein kinase signaling from yeast to man - PubMedEvolution of protein kinase signaling from yeast to man.
Manning G, Plowman G, Hunter T, Sudarsanam S. Trends Biochem Sci 2002 Oct;27(10):514The point is that the 209 sub-families of kinases are distributed throughout life in a 'mosaic'. Some are shared by humans and flies, some by humans and worms, some by worms and flies, some by humans and yeast, some by flies and yeast and so on. It turns out that many of these families must have existed in the sub-yeast common ancestor of all of these organisms and almost all in an organism as simple as the worm. Not only that this supposed common anscestor would have had more kinase sub-families than other more complex organisms.These kinases sub-families all do refined jobs in organisms and the fact that they are still separateable suggests that they did those same jobs in the simple organism. So evolution suggests that simple organisms had more complex systems than animals alive today and that todays systems are due to a differnetial picking and choosing of components from a vast array in a simple organism.As I have predicted genomics will continue to show the utter ridiculousness of macroevoltuion. In this case it shows clearly that life is contructed of a mosaic of parts each for a specific purpose. The concept of common descent requires most of these to have arrived in hypothetical simple systems first becasue of the mosaic distributioon of them in higher life forms. Creation is a far, far better explanation of this mosaic distribution of job-specific protein sub-families.Common descent can be made to be compatible with anything becasue when you find that A and B have some uniquely shared sytems you simply propose that it was present in a hypothetical common anscestor and has been since lost in every other line. Sounds sensible except that the common ansecstor before that needs to have things that are in other branches as well. Everything is answerable by a hypothetical 'simpler organism' that was actually more complex. When genomics comes into play we see how ridiclous this turns out to be.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 11-10-2002]

MammuthusI never said that that there weren't, additionally, completely taxa-specific families & sub-families.However, there are huge amounts of sub-families mosaically spread across taxa that, becasue of the assumption of common descent, unambiguously imply the existence of primative common anscestors that embodied most of these within a single organism!These sub-families of paralogs have conserved specific funcitons in widely disparate extant life. Precisely becasue these sub-families (i) are still bioinformatically distinguishable (by sequence) and (ii) also have conserved specializations this implies primative common anscestors with fewer systems but more numeous sub-functions within those systems.This emerging mosaic distribution of families and sub-families is a strong arguemnet against common descent. I'm sure you have access to the full text of the TIBs paper - have a read.It is the Cambrian Explosion for genes - I'll call it the 'Gene Family Explosion'.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 11-11-2002]