quote:
Mark, I asked you many a times: "How can IC systems evolve, in the first place?" I just don't see any way it can.
IC roughly means "if any single component is removed, then the system doesn't work". Agreed? Anything important missing from the definition?
Given this point, and the ASSUMPTION that evolution can only progress by addition of components, you'd be right.
However, your assumption is flawed. Since you're fond of the persuasiveness of Behe's mousetrap analogy, I feel free to respond with another non-biological analogy.
An arch of stones is irreducibly complex. If you remove any single component, the arch collapses. But, can we assume that the archway therefore CAN'T be built? Of course not. If you first build a supporting scaffolding, it can support the arch. When the arch is complete, it can be free-standing on its own even when the scaffolding is removed.
Behe's argument collapses, because evolution as simple linear addition of components is crucial to the idea that IC systems can't evolve through gradual evolution.
Behe wants to argue that,[i][b]in principle [/i][/b], IC systems can't evolve because there are no pathways, [i][b]in principle [/i][/b], for simple addition of components to reach the required state.
All that is necessary to refute Behe is to demonstrate that, [i][b]in principle [/i][/b], other paths are possible. One possible path is that a more complex system with different components can simplify to an IC system. Therefore, [i][b]in principle [/i][/b], another path is possible.
Conclusion:
Behe is well aware that simply not knowing specifically how something evolved is not sufficient to say it did NOT evolve. Therefore, his argument can't rest on absence of evidence for evolution; instead he has to show that a system couldn't evolve [i][b]in principle [/i][/b]. However, his argument carries a trivially obvious flaw: Evolution is not required to work in the manner of simple linear addition of components.
[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 11-25-2002]