Irreducible Complexity (Slevesque & Dr Adequate Only)

I made the argument from parts being steps, and in biological systems, the basic unit for steps are mutations. Now, the first point of contention is if I find any convincing evidence that the reptilian ear did in fact become the mammalian ear, through a series of steps that natural selection would favor.And this one of the problems your going to have if basing yourself on big anatomical features and transitions from the fossil record. You have to show a series of mutations that lead from one to the other, and you'll find it almost impossible to do using gross anatomical features such as bones, and even more using fossils instead of living animals, because at best you show 8 intermediates, in a transition that probably involves hundreds of mutations.There is a distinct reason why IC systems in biology are analysed only at the biochemical level with the pieces being proteins and such, it is because the analysis of an advantageous mutational pathway to a IC system will be much, much, much more easier to discern.But putting this aside, and supposing that I do accept that I see how this could have evolved, then I still see a blatant problem with this example, the three bones are already contributing to the hearing system of the reptiles: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1And this strongly suggests to me, that this is an example of an already irreducibly complex system of three parts, where you modify the arrangements of the three parts and end up with a different version the same IC system that still does the same thing. Your explanation of all this is very difficult to understand, hopefully I understood it correctly.In this case (once again, if I accept that I can see a possible pathway between fish gill arches and mammalian jaws) is that you start of once again with an upper and lower pieces already in the right place, and end up with these same pieces at the same places but this time changing function, and now serving as a jaw.Another problem is, of course, that the jaw isn't a two piece system. It has many other pieces such as tendons, nervous circuits, etc. etc.I would suggest, for the reasons mentioned earlier, that you stick to biochemical systems, and also because all the pieces of such systems and associated mutations are more easily identifyable. And of course, this will keep us on the terrain of experimental, presently observable processes and science, which is going to be easier for both of us to come to the same conclusions about those systems (contrary to fossils, which you can't expect of me to continually accept that there is a pathway between fossils just for the sake of the topic at hand) This example tends to show that you aren't really interested in a genuine discussion, which was to expected I guess.But say I take the example seriously. The basic irreducibly complex part of this is the IC aspect of multicellularity. It is a basic aspect of it that cells are interdependent and cannot survive without the others.This in fact is a prime test for IC: if IC systems can evolve naturally, in no other area should we be able to better observe this then in the evolution of mulicellularity from unicellularity. The environment around us is filled with billions of unicellur organisms, of generation times in the span of minutes sometimes. If multicellularity was evolvable, then we should routinely observe every step of the process around us at any given time. We do not, and we do not observe it either in the fossil record, where multicellular organism appear all at once with no trace of the intermediates. Clearly, the only reasonable conclusion is that no paths exist for multicellularity, appart from mind-boggling randomness and luck, maybe.Take your time to answer, as I have obviously taken more time then I planned.AbE I know I am making some grand contentious claims here regarding multicellularity, but this was wanted to get the discussion in that direction, so you can drop any snarky comments you could plan up Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

The thing is, that thinking that it did happen is the only way of thinking that it could happen, in this particular case of using fossil evidence (I'm highlighting this so you don't take the previous out of context), because you haven't actually demonstrated a step by step pathway in which each step is favoured by natural selection. But no one is claiming this, and wanting to represent Behe as if this is what he's claiming is clearly fallacious.The thing is, the mechanism you are proposing to explain IC systems is not some sort of continuous morphing, but a step by step process fo mutations and Selection. Two unsupported assertions, unfortunately. It is to make it easy for us, meaning the both of us.Keep in mind, I have no personnal investment in the idea of IC, my worldview functions perfectly well without it, and it's not my idea. If it were to be shown to be unreliable I would gladly conclude so. Note that in the two years I have been here, this is the first time I discuss this subject, and this was only because someone foolishly (in my opinion) claimed that it had been ''utterly and completely demolished'', showing that I myself am hesitant to put much weight to it, and that my intention is to show that, at the very least, credit is to be given were credit is due, and that Behe does not deserve to be treated like a complete idiot. Well, first I don't see how the two jawbones could perform functions on their own, functions such as, you know, chewing. In counter-part, that is because all the relevant pieces for the flagellum to perform it's function are being considered into the system. You can't say the same about your two-piece jaw system This is directly related to IC, because the IC nature of multicellular systems is what makes the crude example of ''head and body'' an IC system. The advent of life, and coordinated multicellularity are two points where we can agree (I hope) that it is clear that they are the advent of IC systems.Multicellularity arises when the selection is made at the level of the organism, not at the level of the individual cells, and reproduces as a single organism.These two areas, the origin of life, and the origin of multicellularity are of particular interest because we should be able to observe every single step all around us. It should like being in a forest, where you don't need to see a tree's entire life to know each steps it goes through because of the vast amount of trees around you, where each tree is at a different stage. (Same analogy with stellar evolution)Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

You do know that argument by analogy is fallacious reasoning, even though it is helpful to sometimes illustrate a discussion.In this case, the analogy clearly does not apply. You are making the claim that there exists a pathway of single mutations, where as each step is favored by natural selection to go from one to the other.In other words, you are making a claim about the mechanism it happened by. Not the historicity of the event. Behe, being a theistic evolutionists, would agree with you that mammals descended from reptiles and the fossil evidence for this, but he would disagree on the mechanism.Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

Hi Dr.A,Sorry end of semester studying is underway, but I haven't forgotten this.In fact I have been reading 'Irreducible complexity revisited' (http://www.designinference.com/....Irred_Compl_Revisited.pdf) in my spare time and I have just finished reading it.I'll be posting a reply hopefully tomorrow. I guess you can read Dembski's paper if you have the time, it would help the discussion