Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,231 Year: 5,488/9,624 Month: 513/323 Week: 10/143 Day: 0/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Criticizing neo-Darwinism
Allopatrik
Member (Idle past 6302 days)
Posts: 59
Joined: 02-07-2007


Message 130 of 309 (388289)
03-05-2007 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by nwr
03-20-2006 10:08 PM


quote:
The neo-Darwinistic account is one of gradual change. The arguments about irreducible complexity arise because gradual change does not plausibly lead to very complex structures. The biology shows how complex structures can arise, but the gradualism of the neo-Darwinist model seems to argue against it.
Not so. First of all, the IC concept is flawed because it is based on taking away parts from already functioning systems, and making inferences about how it came about from that. This is backwards (and even Behe recognizes it, but has yet to fix the error). Secondly, there are several mechanisms by which IC systems can be generated via Darwinian means. One example is gene duplication and subfunctionalization. Another example is promiscuous protein functions, i.e., additional functions a protein may have that are not tied to the primary function (and scaffold) structure of the protein. Mutations can occur to these without detrimental effects because the primary function of the protein isn't affected. Consider an IC hormone/receptor relationship. Traditional IC theory considers this irreducibly complex because one cannot evolve without simultaneous change in the other. Of course, if the functionality in both hormone and receptor proteins start out as promiscuous functions of other proteins, they can coevolve without any detrimental effects of mutations to either, since the primary functions of both original proteins isn't affected. Eventually, gene duplication and specialization could result in two unique proteins with a tight relationship that would appear to be 'unevolvable'.
A

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by nwr, posted 03-20-2006 10:08 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by AdminWounded, posted 03-05-2007 4:30 PM Allopatrik has not replied
 Message 132 by Allopatrik, posted 03-06-2007 7:04 AM Allopatrik has not replied

  
Allopatrik
Member (Idle past 6302 days)
Posts: 59
Joined: 02-07-2007


Message 132 of 309 (388470)
03-06-2007 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Allopatrik
03-05-2007 2:02 PM


Well, maybe we can get a rise from somebody else then Surely there's more than one "IC is the death of evolution" advocate around here.
A

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Allopatrik, posted 03-05-2007 2:02 PM Allopatrik has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024