Cytochrome C and kinds

One area where creationists come in for criticism is that they are unable to give a definition of "kinds" that enables us to differentiate.I have been having a look at Peter. M .Scheeles online book.http://www.evolution-is-degeneration.com/start.htmlIn chapter 6 (does anyone know a way to directly link up to this chapter...and portion of the chapter even?)...he implies that different kinds have different Cytochrome C and if this is true then it should be a way to tell the difference between kinds. (unless I am misreading him).Any thoughts?Am I missing something?

I haven't looked at his book yet, but I can provide him with some "support:"
The pig, cow, and sheep have identical cytochrome c.
They must be one kind. (Leave uncleanness out of this, please...)
The horse and donkey differ by one amino acid in their cytochrome c.
They must be of different kinds.
Humans and rhesus monkeys differ by one amino acid.
They must be of different kinds.
Humans and chimpanzees have identical cytochrome c.
(Your conclusion goes here.)[This message has been edited by Coragyps, 02-16-2003]

Thanks coragyps. I will re-read it. I thought I got it right but the book does suffer a little as english is probably Peter's second language, so perhaps I misread, or it may be wrong.[This message has been edited by judge, 02-16-2003]

These sorts of claims have been floating around since (and probably before) Denton's first book. Unfortunately, he didn't get it right, either.As Cor points out, the creationist should be careful how 'absolutist' they make their definitons. In the cyt. c example, doubtless we will see numeous "exceptions" and so on - afterall, the creationist knows that chimps and humans are different "kinds."Denton, and apprantly this guy, forget the time factor and extinction.

The only boundary between "kinds" is the degree of evolution a creationist is prepared to accept. It really is that simple. If a creationist is not prepared to accept that two species are related under common descent they are different "kinds".

Well I had a look on the section on cytochrome-C and it does seem to argue that anything with different cytochrome-C cannot be related.On the other hand there is a section here:29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 4"With this in mind, consider again the molecular sequences of cytochrome c. Cytochrome c is absolutely essential for life - organisms that lack it cannot live. It has been shown that the human cytochrome c protein works in yeast (a unicellular organism) that has had its own native cytochrome c gene deleted, even though yeast cytochrome c differs from human cytochrome c over 40% of the protein (Tanaka et. al 1988a; Tanaka et al. 1988b; Wallace and Tanaka 1994). In fact, the cytochrome c genes from tuna (fish), pigeon (bird), horse (mammal), Drosophila fly (insect), and rat (mammal) all function in yeast that lack their own native yeast cytochrome c (Clements et al. 1989; Hickey et al. 1991; Koshy et al. 1992; Scarpulla and Nye 1986)."Most of these papers have the abstracts available through links at the original site.That disposes of one argument - that cytochrome-C CANNOT change becaue it would require siumultaneous mutatiosn to other proteins.The other argument - as to why we find only one version in any given species is answered by pointing out that SUCCESSFUL mutations in cytochrome-C are rare becuase MANY of the possible changes WOULD run intot he very problem that was supposed to prevent the gene for cytochrome-C evolving at all. So changes which survive are rare and it is not surprising that species generally have a single version. Closely related species usually have the SAME version - as chimps and humans do.

Paulk:
Well I had a look on the section on cytochrome-C and it does seem to argue that anything with different cytochrome-C cannot be related.Judge:
Yes...I have always found that the Dutch are very good english speakers, but I suspect this portion may just not be worded well. I say this because although it dioes seem to imply that different Cytochrome C would differentiate between kinds, when Peter actually specifically addresses kinds in another section he doesn't refer to Cytochrome C at all.
So perhaps it needs some editing.Thanks for the links. At the moment I don't see why being able to replace one form of Cyt C in another organism (that originally had another version) refutes his arguments that Cytochrome C would not be able to change.
I will go over it again.

According to talk origin:"With this in mind, consider again the molecular sequences of cytochrome c. Cytochrome c is absolutely essential for life - organisms that lack it cannot live. It has been shown that the human cytochrome c protein works in yeast (a unicellular organism) that has had its own native cytochrome c gene deleted, even though yeast cytochrome c differs from human cytochrome c over 40% of the protein (Tanaka et. al 1988a; Tanaka et al. 1988b; Wallace and Tanaka 1994). In fact, the cytochrome c genes from tuna (fish), pigeon (bird), horse (mammal), Drosophila fly (insect), and rat (mammal) all function in yeast that lack their own native yeast cytochrome c (Clements et al. 1989; Hickey et al. 1991; Koshy et al. 1992; Scarpulla and Nye 1986)."PB: But is the otherway around also true, i.e. does yeast Cyt C work in human, horse, tuna etcetera? That would be the more interesting question.best wishes,
Peter

Scheele argues that ANY variation would be fatal without corresponding mutations in other proteins, so that cytochrome-C cannot evolve.But the fact is that these experiments show that there are variations - and not just minor variations - which DO work very well.Scheele's argument is based on an asumption that has been proven to be false.

I came across Borger's 'essay' on genetic redundancies that he made at the UTK evolution board over a year ago.It did not generate a single response, even from the creationists that post there.Guess his 'work' was seen as being irrelevant there as well.So, like any good crank, he finds another board to boost his ego at.Didn't work here, either, so he just claims that he 'wins' all the time in spite of hwat really happens.Common in supernaturalist narcissists.