If you want to make a case that the different MotA proteins are functionally distinct then make the argument. Just saying over and over again taht there is no evidence is the purest bull when I have given you the best evidence you can have short of us getting together in a lab and sequencing the genes ourselves.
I lost my train of thought. I just read your message 335 and i'm sure you are correct, however I still remain unconvinced that Darwinism is the only explanation. Obviously there is a great deal of variation in three dimensional protein structures. And I have stated before there are different enzymes that can perform the same function.
Drew, all you are doing is regurgitating the claims of the ID crowd, claims which you simply seem to accept at face value.
Yes, I am pretty much reverberating what the ID crowd says. I am not a scientist and they know more than me. I do have a few original ideas such as Assemblism. I don't see what is wrong with repeating them to see how people react to it.
But all of these things being equal we would still expect the same sequence to produce the same folds.
This is irrelevant though since you concede that other sequences can produce functionally similar, if not the same, folds.
Well apparently they can but I wouldn't expect this to happen between different sets of sequences most of the time. I would think there should be a great amount of variation among specific protein shapes.
And Meyers attribution is enough for you? Do you see why we get the impression you are doing nothing more than cutting and pasting points from ID sites? You don't seem to want to do any research into these topics that doesn't consist of looking up the recieved ID wisdom on them.
Well that is why I have been here. I want to hear more counterpoints.
Why not look at the actual evidence for once rather than a potted digest handed down from the ID movement?
I like Meyer and Behe and I agree most of the time with the few IDists who post on this website. I thought of challenging them but they seem to have their hands full with you guys. Very few times I have totally disagreed with their content but most of the time they could have done a better job in persuading me in favor of their views.
Are you saying that homologous genes in the developing wing and the gills are the result of convergent evolution at the molecular level?
That thought did occur to me.
That the same molecular strutures evolved (or were created/intelligently designed if you will) seperately twice for 2 different functions?
It would serve as a casual explanation.
As usual of course Behe is talking nonsense.
Then where is the crustacean gill to wings theoretical pathway?
And Sean Carroll is right, it was very unexpected. People expected to see much greater divergence and diversity at the genetic level and the existence of such fundamental similar genetic building blocks as the HOX genes and numerous signalling pathways was a radical discovery.
Well then, I would think these similar genetic building blocks should give you clues as to specific Darwinian pathways various ancient organisms took. Where are the gills to wings pathways? I would think the thinking and conjecture says, "The genes were dominant at one point in crustaceans but then became hidden within junk DNA and then expressed themselves again when it was time for wings to evolve." I still can think you all are saying, "It was a surprise but it still can be explained with Darwinian conjecture." Darwinian conjecture is beginning to sound 'amorphous' just as Paul K described ID. And the amorphous description doesn't persuade me the other way a tiny bit because a designer can do what a designer wants.
But the similarity of these pathways, and indeed the patterns of their diversity, are a strong argument for a natural history of life on Earth based on common descent with modification from common ancestral populations.
That is a strong statement and if you can point me to a place that can elaborate on that then I 'might' be persuaded even though I might honestly be afraid to read it.
Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
