Definition of created kind!

Some clarification:1. Are you suggesting a possible starting point for a defintion of "kind", or are you arguing that "different protein transduction pathways" could NOT arise via evolution. Or both?2. You seem to allow that proteins can double (rather, the gene that codes a protein can have another copy in the genome), and that proteins can change due to mutation. If you allow these, what exactly is left for a new "protein transduction pathway"? Those two things can create two genes that code for two different proteins. What's missing?3. At the end, you also include the idea of multiple proteins being necessary for a different kind. Could you maybe clarify this? You seem to mean something more than just "different kinds have many different proteins", but I'm not 100% clear on what else you specifically mean.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ZAURUZ:
Those accumulating new proteins should start interact with one another or interact with already existing proteins. The question is how many new proteins can interact with eachother before they stop vitally important Signal Transduction Pathways (STP). So how big could a new STP be at maximum. 3-5 new proteins, I dont know. And every mutation doesnt produce new proteins.
So whats missing is a whole set of new proteins, sugars that interact without breaking a vitally important STP.

---

1. First, you've switched terms on me: you originally said "protein transduction pathway", and now you say "signal transduction pathway". The first would refer, I believe, to proteins being formed from a genetic code, which is what my orignal comments were based on. The second term refers to a pathway that moves a signal from outside a cell to inside a cell (e.g., neurotransmitters attach to a receptor on a nerve cell, the receptor causes changes internally). Did you mean one of these specific meanings?2. Second, I'm not sure why any new protein would necessarily "break" an exisiting transduction pathway (of either sort), or why 3-5 new proteins suddenly would, or whatever. As long as the original proteins were also being made, I don't see any necessary problem.Unfortunately, I don't think you're suceeding in creating a workable definition/standard for "created kind", although I'm still seeing where you're going. It seems more like you're just saying you don't see how systems of proteins could form. I don't see that you've created any barrier, though. You talk about new proteins breaking old pathways, but I don't see how this is inevitable.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ZAURUZ:
[b]Ok, we have Protein System A: signal molecule A, receptor A, the transduction proteins within a cell, reprossors and inducers. The more molecules and bigger reaction sites the more complex it is.Protein System B: signal molecule B, receptor B, the transduction proteins within a cell, reprossors and inducers. The more molecules and bigger reaction sites the more complex it is.Protein System C: signal molecule C, receptor C, the transduction proteins within a cell, reprossors and inducers. The more molecules and bigger reaction sites the more complex it is.If a new protein in celltype A arise would it immediately cause
any trouble by acting with those transduction proteins. If it would be good it would maybe make the transduction more efficient. A protein is added to STP A. But what would next protein in celltype A do. If that also is good it would make the STP a little more even efficient. They dont produce any new protein system, they are just being added to the existing one. [/QUOTE][/b]That's one possibility. Another possibility is that a new protein doesn't interact the original group at all. There are lots of possibilities. [QUOTE][b] But soon enought bad mutations occur and destroy the whole package of accumulated proteins.[/QUOTE][/b]Why? I mean it could happen, but why *MUST* it happen? [QUOTE][/B]
And if celltype A produce a hormone that trigger signal molecule C its good. And then celltype B produce another hormone that also might help protein system C. The third hormone from celltype B produce a protein that destroy protein system C totally. The organism die.If a new protein system is going to be produced the new proteins must NEVER EVER disturb a vitally important system. So how the questions is: Will these new proteins react only themselves and how many new proteins until the organism die.[/B][/QUOTE]New proteins can interact with any number of systems, or none. I can't figure out why you assume at some point the influence *must* be destructive. You ask "how many new proteins until the organism die." I say - not necessarily ever. There's no necessary limit to the number of protein changes. Sure, at some point some individual will have a bad mutation, but chances are it won't get passed on, assuming it's really bad. That's selection at work.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ZAURUZ:
Dont worry Jeff.

​

Maybe we havnt FOUND a protein systeme (PS)=(STP + Extracellular signals)=(STP + ES) yet that differ us from chimps.

​

But the clear anatomical differences indicate that there are some particular different PS:s that differ us.

---

There are clear anatomical differences between lions and pet cats, yet creationists generally consider them the same kind.

I don't know, you tell me. They're pretty big differences.the problem is - as your question illustrates - is that the differences are pretty subjective, and we're supposed to be looking for the definition of "kind" to tell us what's what. Instead, when presented with a specific case (humans and chimps), you assume they will be different kinds because they seem "very different" to you. Well, quite honestly, to me, chimps and humans don't seem particularly more different from each other than lions and Fluffy the persian lap kitty.do you think that house cats and lions are the same kind?------------------
"Colorless green ideas sleep furiously." - Chomsky

quote:

---

Originally posted by ZAURUZ:
A frame shift mutation often produce totally different proteins, with lots of possibilities to bind anywhere by chance. If these just leak out/heap up in the blood or within a cell I just cant imagine that they build up a new system themselves and none of them not at any time bind dangerously to a vitally important system. The only good thing they can do is to regulate ordinary protein systems to work more or less efficient.

---

"I can't imagine" - this is termed the "Argument from Personal Incredulity". It doesn't matter if you, sitting around, have doubts. I don't have those doubts. Therefore, we need something more concrete to talk about.It doesn't matter if something *seems* likely or not - our common sense notions of probability are extremely inaccurate. The truth is, there's plenty of good work showing how complex biochemical pathways can evolve: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/publish.html

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
John

​

you are quite right that a protein could gradually morph from one fold to another via DNA changes. However in doing so it would spend most of its time unfolded and hence non-funcitonal

---

Why would a protein *ever* be unfolded?Proteins fold. Period. Make a protein, it assumes *some* fold. It would never, ever be "unfolded". What would that even mean? That it would be a straight chain of amino acids?------------------
"Colorless green ideas sleep furiously." - Chomsky

Well, getting rid of a certain fold to me does not mean you have an unfolded protein...Seriously, what does an "unfolded protein" mean? Unfortunately all my textbooks are currently packed away, and I have yet to find appropriate internet resources that would let me know about "unfolded proteins" in the current context - although the smattering I've looked at have yet to tell me that "most proteins are unfolded". Perhaps this is just a variation of jargon across regions or sub-disciplines.Anyway, all you've told me is that certain fold patterns are resistant to mutational change (without serious or complete disruption). Where exactly is the absolute barrier to evolutionary change that would make this relevant to "created kinds"?(Perhaps you've covered this elsewhere, and you could point me there._------------------
"Colorless green ideas sleep furiously." - Chomsky

OK, I think we're on the same wavelength - by "unfolded", you mean something like "not folded to a single stable conformation"?I'll have to read up a bit to talk about this intelligently, but some clarification:Are you saying that protein fold families define, or help define, "originally created kinds"? Or just that this is a problem for current evolutionary theory? (Or both...or something else...).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:

​

It is a difficulty for evolution becasue there doesn't seem to be anywhere near enought time for these families to evolve, let alone organise into pathways, systems and organs. But the only refs on that are creationist so you probably wont buy that.

---

Ah, heck, give me a try. You're probably right, but I'd still like to see some information more detailed than is generally possible on a discussion board.------------------
"Colorless green ideas sleep furiously." - Chomsky