Like you stated above, many of the organisms that he used as examples of irreducible complexity have since been found to be ”reducible.’ However, I do not think that invalidates his point”if there are other organisms to be found that are indeed irreducibly complex, how could this not be an argument for intelligent design?
A major problem is that irreducible complexity (IC)
as defined is flawed from the start. It excludes anything but single, gradual steps ( a mistaken view of what evolution calls for). It excludes, for one, thing the possiblity of co-option of a structure from some other use.
It excludes the idea of "scaffolding". The analogy given for this is a stone arch. This fits the definition of IC. Remove a stone and bang! down it falls. You can NOT build an arch one stone at a time if that is all you have.
You can however, build an arch with scafolding to hold it up until the cornerstone is in place. One biological example of this is the evolution of the mammalian jaw. It had to go through a step with both reptilian AND mamamalian structures (as scafolding).
So IC as given to date is a useless idea. It is simply meaningless.
Once you allow for the possibility of different pathways to an end point (only two of which are co option and scaffolding) I don't see that anyone can come up with any, even wildly speculative possibilities.
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-26-2006 01:13 AM