EvC Forum: Irreducible Complexity and TalkOrigins

I just ordered Behe's book, I haven't read it yet so please no spoilers!

I was reading a review on it and someone posted that IC (irreducible complexity) had been completely refuted on TalkOrigins.org. I simply had to read as much as I could. So here is what I found, and I present these questions to the knowledgeable partakers of the EvC. Thanks and much love.

talkorigins writes:

How might an IC system evolve? One possibility is that in the past, the function may have been done with more parts than are strictly necessary. Then an 'extra' part may be lost, leaving an IC system.

I find this answer fascinating. How did the original IC system evolve? Dr. Spetner suggests that there is a limit to the mutations of an organism based off "how many essential nucleotides it has in its active genome." [spetner 1998 Not by Chance! pg.81] So if this is the case and the variability of a genome of a mammal is roughly 10 to the 24,082,400 power, which is taken on the assumption that the genome only consists of 1% of its dna being "real" information and the rest carrying no information,
How possible is it that the parts will transpose randomly in the genome to result in even one mutation that could result in an IC system?

The odds, according to Dr. Spetner, are very slim to even get a mutation much less one that is advantageous to the organism. Here are some questions Spetner poses to this unlikely event:
What is the chance of getting a mutation?
What fraction of the mutations have a selective advantage?
How many replications are there in each step of the chain of cumulative selection?
How many of those steps do their need to be for a new species to form?

Probably a very small chance of these accumulating especially those that need to result in order to achieve an IC system.

talkorigins writes:

. Or the parts may become co-adapted to perform even better, but become unable to perform the specified function at all without each other.

Sounds like a guess, has anyone ever seen this? Is there any evidence that this has occurred?

talkorigins writes:

This brings up another point: the parts themselves evolve. Behe's parts are usually whole proteins or even larger. A protein is made up of hundreds of smaller parts called amino acids, of which twenty different kinds may be used. Evolution usually changes these one by one

As I understand it, if one amino acid in a chain is altered or mutated we can't really expect the same result in the phenotype as was prior the mutation. Correct me if I am wrong. Please don't bog me down with questions I can't answer, that is what you are for. Unless you can't answer please do not respond or lie. Thanks.

talkorigins writes:

Another important fact is that DNA evolves.

Not following...

talkorigins elaborates and writes:

If you think about it, each protein that your body makes is made at just the right time, in just the right place and in just the right amount. These details are also coded in your DNA (with timing and quantity susceptible to outside influences) and so are subject to mutation and evolution. For our purposes we can refer to this as deployment of parts. When a protein is deployed out of its usual context, it may be co-opted for a different function.

EVOLUTION TO THE RESCUE! Seriously though it sounds interestingly too precise for random chance to produce. When has a protein been "co-opted for a different function?" I thought enzymes played a part somehow?

talkorigins writes:

A fourth noteworthy possibility is that brand new parts are created. This typically comes from gene duplication, which is well known in biology. At first the duplicate genes make the same protein, but these genes may evolve to make slightly different proteins that depend on each other.

Is the author talking about copying errors? Or is something else? He sure says "may" many times when speaking of evolution as a process. (just a quick jab to the ribs

)

Alright, this is a section titled "How Might Irreducible Complexity Evolve?" from the article "Irreducible Complexity Demystified" by Pete Dunkelberg. Check it out here: Irreducible Complexity Demystified

And I just realized that it is from the website talkdesign and not talkorigin where I linked from it, I don't feel like correct myself, I pointed that out so I wouldn't be mobbed by the dissecting carnivores of EvC.

I know there is probably more I left out, bring it up as I am strapped for time these days we will eventually get to it. Thanks!

"Sometimes one pays most for the things one gets for nothing." --Albert Einstein

4 online now:	kjsimons, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Theodoric
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,910 Year: 4,167/9,624 Month: 1,038/974 Week: 365/286 Day: 8/13 Hour: 1/0