<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: For Proteins, Evolution Is a One-Way Street</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/09/29/for-proteins-evolution-is-a-one-way-street/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/09/29/for-proteins-evolution-is-a-one-way-street/</link>
	<description>80beats is DISCOVER&#039;s news aggregator, weaving together the choicest tidbits from the best articles covering the day\&#039;s most compelling topics.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:46:20 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Fat kid</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/09/29/for-proteins-evolution-is-a-one-way-street/comment-page-1/#comment-53259</link>
		<dc:creator>Fat kid</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:18:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/?p=3674#comment-53259</guid>
		<description>Think of adaptation as a ripple instead of a line.  Ennervation broadcasts outward in all directions, not just up or down.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Think of adaptation as a ripple instead of a line.  Ennervation broadcasts outward in all directions, not just up or down.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: YouRang</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/09/29/for-proteins-evolution-is-a-one-way-street/comment-page-1/#comment-53205</link>
		<dc:creator>YouRang</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2009 14:38:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/?p=3674#comment-53205</guid>
		<description>Hmm.  They don&#039;t seem to have tried going just part way back to see if there is any difference in those 5 non-functioning sites.  I.e. maybe there is no evolutionary drive to change those 5 at the present configuration ; but what would happen if they had changed just 1 and then returned some of the 5, then just 2 then just 3 ... of the 7 crucial changes?  Maybe there would have been evolutionary advantages for the 5 to go back tat those points.  And, the question  remains:  At how many returned functional amino acids would you get a dead protein?  And hence, (call that number N) if  you had just changed N-1 proteins, would there have been an evolutionary advantage?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hmm.  They don&#8217;t seem to have tried going just part way back to see if there is any difference in those 5 non-functioning sites.  I.e. maybe there is no evolutionary drive to change those 5 at the present configuration ; but what would happen if they had changed just 1 and then returned some of the 5, then just 2 then just 3 &#8230; of the 7 crucial changes?  Maybe there would have been evolutionary advantages for the 5 to go back tat those points.  And, the question  remains:  At how many returned functional amino acids would you get a dead protein?  And hence, (call that number N) if  you had just changed N-1 proteins, would there have been an evolutionary advantage?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
