tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14815894.post115436125210601610..comments2024-03-27T06:52:45.545-04:00Comments on Bayblab: VSV contradicts evolution?Kamelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15548259062576527751noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14815894.post-1154367542961052792006-07-31T13:39:00.000-04:002006-07-31T13:39:00.000-04:00Of course you could argue that it is the structure...Of course you could argue that it is the structure/function that is selected for and once a structure/function is obtained you get amino acid sequence drift from the origonal.<BR/>Also if you look at the pics they do share some similarity but only a structural biologist would have the skillz to know if it is significant at all. I know nothing about structural homology that isn't sequenced based.<BR/>In any case I think a common ancestor for VSV and HSV is pretty improbabe.Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11878582460269426199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14815894.post-1154363699301549082006-07-31T12:34:00.000-04:002006-07-31T12:34:00.000-04:00Yeah I noticed that too...after all selection acts...Yeah I noticed that too...after all selection acts on genes which encode amino acids in proteins which specifies the tertiary structure, not vice versa. So if they got no homology on the primary level, that implies convergent evolution. To suggest a common ancestor you'd have to see some homology at the amino acid level. Wait...I just blasted and they both have methionines at position 1...This is why stuctural biologists should be barred from making functional speculation in their papers!! Just proof of what Rob says, crystal structures are good for pretty pictures and SDM and not much else....Baymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03436172198266062229noreply@blogger.com