You’re more than welcome for the laughs. I’m glad I can provide some entertainment, but to the matter at hand, Steve Matheson helped me articulate the problem more succinctly, namely, the problem of fitness peaks and how natural selection is in many cases an IMPEDIMENT to evolutionary change, not a mechanism that facilitates it.
The issue at hand is the emergence of functional and integrated paralogs such as the tubulin paralogs in eukaryotes. Co-option of domains and major parts is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the evolution of such functional systems.
By way of analogy, when computer users create pass words, they co-opt the same alphabet as everyone else, the fact of co-option doesn’t make it probable that one user will be able to find a functional password to someone else’s user account. The existence of co-opted parts (as in protein motifs), does not imply functional integration will proceed naturally. Such as in the issue of promiscuous domains, it creates problems for the feasibility of evolution.
I’m assuming you don’t want an answer to your question.
Sure I’ll answer it, there is no fundamental difference, except evolutionary biologists don’t admit their theory needs miracles to make common descent actually work.