Definition of created kind!

Thats just because the dangerous organism cant bind. After a few mutations things are going worse.

quote:

---

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

---

Those anotomical differeneces arent bigger than between us and chimps, are they.

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:
Thats just because the dangerous organism cant bind.

---

Right. That is exactly the point. The mutation provides survival value to the people who possess it, which is why it stays around.Eventually one of several things will happen. One, malaria (or its vectors) will die out, the selective force will thus disappear and the sickle cell mutation will fade out. Two, another mutation will allow the sickle cell proteins to function properly. Three, another less crippling mutation will take over the malaria defense, and the sickle cell genes will fade out. See where I'm going?I choose sickle cell anemia to illustrate some of the complexity of natural selection. Why? One objection to evolution I hear a lot is that mutations must be all or nothing. You can't go halfway. This is halfway. Both harmful and beneficial, and it is unclear on which side of the fence it will eventually sit.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

All creationists who are actually practising biologists do not deny that mutations can lead to adaptive transformaitons. It is utterly undeniable. I have seen it with my own eyes. But it's always mutations to existing protein surfaces altering binding as you guys are discussing. There's no new cellular system developed.We need to discuss the origin of novel protein fold families, biochemical pathways, macromolecualr machines and systems. That is the issue. We don't even have to wait for all the genomes to be reeled into discuss that. We already know that novel protein fold families are correlated with cellular novelty. There is almost no mainstream literature on the origin of protein fold families (which may also be called gene families).The human/chimp discusion will have to await the chimp genome I'm afraid. For that we need to tune back here in around 2005 I think. And I think bonoboos just got the boot by the relevant genomic committee.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-25-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zhimbo:
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.

---

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.
Bad or good could also be whether they bind to an organism or not. Its bad to bind to a malaria-parasite. For a leguminous plant its good to take contact with Rhizobium bacteria.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:

We need to discuss the origin of novel protein fold families, biochemical pathways, macromolecualr machines and systems. That is the issue. We don't even have to wait for all the genomes to be reeled into discuss that. We already know that novel protein fold families are correlated with cellular novelty. There is almost no mainstream literature on the origin of protein fold families (which may also be called gene families).

---

Why the insistence on novel protein fold families? Is this where you draw the line between 'kinds' or between micro and macro-evolution?Besides which, a protein's fold is a function of its chemical makeup. Its chemistry is a function its organism's DNA. Change in DNA == change in fold, at least sometimes. I don't see the problem.And, you seem to imply that evolution isn't possible without a change in protein fold. Is that how you see it?Just trying to catch up with your thought processes right now.Take care.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

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

Johnyou 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 in any sense. Hence it could not be open to acclerated adaptation by natural selection until it randomly drifted to something functional. So the point is going from fold to fold is something that is the same as going from random to non-random.I do draw the kind line on this sort of issue (and also micro and macro-evolution).Evoltuion is possible without a change in protein fold - it happens all the time. But all genomes above a certain level are differnetiatable by new gene families at some taxonmoic level. We suggest it will approximately be at the family level but we will see. Currently we can only say with surity that plants, yeast, worms, flies and man are distinguishable on the basis of gene family usage. We already understand why - distinct gene families are associated with the specific cellular processes (like the immune system, cell-cell interactions, metabolic pathways etc). If evoltuion occurred, in addition to resuing existing folds it systematically developed new folds at great uphill cost to achieve novelty.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]Johnyou 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 in any sense. Hence it could not be open to acclerated adaptation by natural selection until it randomly drifted to something functional. So the point is going from fold to fold is something that is the same as going from random to non-random.[/QUOTE][/b]How is that going from random to non-random? A functional protein would be 'locked in place' by natural selection at least for awhile.... I just don't see why this is important. [QUOTE][b]But all genomes above a certain level are differnetiatable by new gene families at some taxonmoic level.[/QUOTE][/b]Entirely new gene families? As in ex nihilo?

quote:

---

Currently we can only say with surity that plants, yeast, worms, flies and man are distinguishable on the basis of gene family usage.

---

More info on gene family usage please, as you see it.

quote:

---

We already understand why - distinct gene families are associated with the specific cellular processes (like the immune system, cell-cell interactions, metabolic pathways etc).

---

ok

quote:

---

If evoltuion occurred, in addition to resuing existing folds it systematically developed new folds at great uphill cost to achieve novelty.

---

Good thing we have a great big thermo-nuclear savings and loan called Sol.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

delete

​

[This message has been edited by SLPx, 06-27-2002]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:Actually, all you did was cite one creationist paper from a creationist magazine.
The other citations, as I showed, didn't exactly demonstrate what you wanted them to.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
We need to discuss the origin of novel protein fold families, biochemical pathways, macromolecualr machines and systems. That is the issue. We don't even have to wait for all the genomes to be reeled into discuss that. We already know that novel protein fold families are correlated with cellular novelty. There is almost no mainstream literature on the origin of protein fold families (which may also be called gene families).

---

Hmmm... I punched in "evolution of gene families" at Pubmed and got 1776 returns. "Evolution of protein familiaes" got 1672, including this one which was first on the list:Harrison PM, Gerstein M.Studying genomes through the aeons: protein families, pseudogenes and proteome evolution.
J Mol Biol. 2002 May 17;318(5):1155-74."Evolution opf protein folds" got a mere 176."origin of protein fold families" got 28."origin of protein families" 901.Granted, many of these will not be directly related to the topic at hand, but it should be obvious that this is much more than "almost no mainstream literature".

quote:

---

The human/chimp discusion will have to await the chimp genome I'm afraid.

---

Why is that?

SLPxHave a close look: almost all are about evolution within the gene or protein family. I have spent literally hours perusing the literature on these issues. I have found one or two papers only over the last few years.I read that JMB paper last week - it's simply about the distribtuion of fold families in sequenced genomes. Absolutely fascinating but completely consistent with literal creation.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-27-2002]

SLPx, you never responded to (at least the second) of the quotes I dug out from the mainstream FEBBs Lett paper later:

quote:

---

"Using the presence of the protein families as taxonomic traits, and linking them to biochemical pathways . . ."

​

and

​

The mere presence or absence of a protein family can be indicative of the existence of an entire cellular process"

---

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-27-2002]