Natural selection does not have a goal it wants to reach or a memory like Dawkins weasel program.
Of course it doesn't have a goal, but it certainly has memory in the form of DNA,memory which can be both read and written to.
That is not possible by a loss of specified complexity guided by natural selection
Yes it is, look up 'gene conversion', wholly novel arragements of domains are possible which can quite easily produce radical new functional arrangements for proteins which may well need a new familial classification.
As you have already stated, those in the family itself have very few differences.
Not quite what I said. I said that there were differences of varying magnitude. The protein are classed due to specific structural similarities. and as with such classifications with animals by morphology they can lead to proteins with highly divergent structures and functions being classed together due to certain key similarities.
When I said no functions I should have been more specific. No new functions that require the addition of specified complexity.
You certainly should be more specific.
It makes it to tempting to reply when I see obvious mistakes.
Such as your ones about fin and gill genes or about proinsulin, neither of which you have cared to address?
Since you are going I thought I might use this post to review a couple of things I didn't have time to cover previously.
If I don't understand something I research it. If I can't explain it as well as he explained it I will post his explanation. Why try putting something someone else understands far better into my own words? If I don't understand how somethings works I wont just go "well I guess I should not look for an answer" im going to look and post someone who claims to understand its anwser to see if it holds water. I try to see what side the valid informarion leans towards. I do not ignore information so that one side automatically gets a handicap vote.
This is a really important point, and the main reason why simply bare linking or c&p is discouraged. By putting someting into your own words you show that you have at least some understanding of how the thing works, or you are more likely to highlight gaps in your own understanding, thus allowing them to be filled. Simply cutting and pasting what someone else has written doesn't give any impression that you know what the issues are of have any substantive rebuttal, especially if you make a huge c&p which covers lots of irrelevant or tangential material as well. How does posting someone elses claims test whether they hold water, especially when you seem totally determined to deny the validity of any rebuttals which suggest that they don't in fact hold water, usually trying to bolster the first claim with another cut and paste from the site?
If you write it yourself you will gain a better understanding of the subject and the people you interact with will gain an impression that you actually have some idea what you are talking about.
TTFN,
WK
P.S. I consider this one of your greatest hits...
Information loss can be beneficial only if the environment makes it beneficial.
..in what other way can any trait be beneficial?