By the by, I should add that if you want evidence for why "irreducible complexity" doesn't work, take a look at Chapter 5 of Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth. In particular, focus on the work of Richard Lenski, discussed by Dawkins on pp. 116-133.

One of the most interesting results involved E. coli evolving to metabolize citrate in the presence of oxygen -- but only after two mutations had occurred, and in a specific order. Despite the improbability of such an event, it did happen, and with highly beneficial effects for the E. coli lineage in which it did.

The first mutation is completely useless without the second. Take the second away, and you've got nothing. According to Behe, that's irreducible complexity, so it couldn't have evolved. But evolve it did.

One last comment on "irreducible complexity" and then I'm done with it.

Originally Posted by Freedom

an ancestral system need have the same function as the modern system if it is to have the same selection pressure.

True. But why must the modern and ancestral systems have the same selection pressure in order for the former to evolve from the latter?

There is no such requirement!!! In fact, a modern system could evolve from an ancestral system precisely because the selection pressures change!

The more I consider "irreducible complexity," the less sense it makes.

Originally Posted by Freedom

You must integrate the concept of selection pressure with time, this is the key to understanding IC.

Selection pressure exists only for existing mutations.

What selection pressure for any structure in say I secretory system for a flagellum can there be?

Now don't try to dodge the question it justs wastes time I always have managed to get back to it.

Eventually you will have to deal with the issue as databed and peeling had to, the only escape is going the route of trebor or accipter.

The answer must be none, after that my argument will consist almost entirely of refuting the excuses that follow.

The excuses take the following forms:

- Co-option, claims that if and when a function develops which is so close to a non-existent novel function this is infact a result of the evolutionary process when in fact no reason for any pattern to emerge from this possibility can be given much less given as a result of natural selection. i.e. if it does happen it is random.

- Pure chance - Evolution does not produce novel function, it just assures they don't disappear afterward. The claim is that the odds of spontaneous generation of every single novel function in biology isn't that large so at some point it simply appeared (this is where I play part II of dawkins interview).

Both appeals to chance.





Slide one is true.

Slide two, three are false.

Slide five is correct, note that no-function cannot compete.

The 'second principle of evolution' is the co-option argument mentioned above.

Bennedict an ancestral system need have the same function as the modern system if it is to have the same selection pressure.

The connection between a secretory system and a flagellum is inherently one on a human conceptual level.

The selection for a injection system and the selection for a swimming motor may only be the same by chance.

four times the video hand waves 'associations', the bonding of protein structures out of the blue. Perhaps the video maker forgets that proteins must have control and constructor systems, they do not simply appear in the right place at the right time.

the ATP synthase is the very same structure in mitochondrial membranes is it not?

Doesn't that create ATP given an ion differential? how did it switch to moving protiens now?

At the step where proteins become adhesive, the selection pressure before this would be for controlled expulsion of whatever protein it was working at.

Now an adhesive protien that blocked the entrance would be a negative modification as it would knock out the function of the system, natural selection would remove it.

Then we have this pilus increasing odds of connecting to a substrate, what the hec?

What substrate is being mentioned, and why in the world would a straight or bent column of proteins help locate it?

Not to mention the complete lack of control systems throughout, when are these structures built? What do they move and when? What controls the height of a pilus?

This video is an evolutionary story with pictures, I asked the above questions because it is clear that you need to engage on absolute specifics.


You have not, I apologize if I am sounding unhelpful now but in the face of an assertion more than a counter insertion is not necessary and I have found very counter productive as it makes it appear that the initial assertion was in fact supported and now is being attacked on some logical grounds.


Yes.


Then a human eye as a whole is not IC.


I have resolved this lack of full analysis on the part of evolutionist and Behe by completing the IC analysis to classify all biological systems as either IC or HIC.


Natural selection, cannot even by the most desperate hopeful 'see' through a function change.

Evolution itself requires the premise that a series of beneficial mutations will accumulate.

This accumulation, often mistaken in my post when I say things like 'final' or 'end product' to mean the perfect form of a system; is the target of an evolutionary pathway in which the selection pressures are constantly towards it's high functionality.

So yes it does, to say otherwise is an appeal to chance.


This is not the only case of proteins being used in several functions. You are fond of pointing out all the parts that are missing, this is not a good sign for co-option if you were trying to use that.


Yes, No, Has someone done that experiment?


Yet you use examples instead of speaking of fundamental principles.


Since you have not disproved that the eye or flagellum are not HIC or IC, and I say you cannot by fundamental principles I would not make a statement about doing so to other systems.


I have proven it sound by refuting every attack on it which almost always took the form of forgetting a premise or modifying it's terms.


The only thing IC claims does not exist is what it claims cannot happen.


Evolution is a theory, it does not 'exist' it is either valid or invalid depending on if it's explanation is correct (matches reality).

If I were fartigle I would take this opportunity to point out that it sounded like you just said evolution was unfalsifiable.


They would not because the evidence does not prove the theory.


Then stop arguing with me, for debate is a competition of ideas.

I am serious if you have already thought to yourself 'no matter what he says I know evolution is correct and IC is invalid' you are wasting my time and yours.

i will continue arguing because you apparently still dont quite get how evolution works.

your idea of HIC is quite silly. i suppose you mean if you remove some parts of the eye, like the retina, the eye will not function which is true. however, the retina was the first to evolve and is thus a fundamental part of the eye. thats like saying if you remove the stem from a flower it will not function like a flower. thats also true because the stem grows first. if you remove the flower on some plants, the stem and plant will still survive and sometimes produce another flower. you cannot remove the part that first evolved because it is necessary for function. in fact, in the case of the eye, you can even demote the retina to regular skin cells with adapted, upgraded light sensitivity. every skin cell has a certain degree of light sensitivity. you cannot remove the cell membrane from the flagellum. this is not HIC, its evolution basics. the fact of the matter is if you removed every part of your eye except the retina, without ruining it, you will have functionality, so Behe is wrong about the eye. and ive never heard of Behe or anyone talk about HIC other than you.

secretory systems have a certain 'pressure' in both meanings. it's cell membrane is pressurized by these viruses it tries to excrete, and without a proper secretory system, it cannot excrete anything. certain proteins have peptide bonds and enzymes which can adhere to the inner membrane. secretion of certain chemicals can break down a small area of that inner membrane and the first stage of the secretory system can happen - access to the cell membrane. repeat for the cell membrane and you have access to the outer membrane. repeat again and you have a working secretory system. the selection pressure is one that states 'one small upgrade is better than none at all'. the stages happen one on top of the other because its very easy for a protein to bond to the upper most membrane from directly below it. its rare to have a secretory system where one or two of its stages are not in the same place as the last one. this is because of protein drift.

your question of selection pressure between secretory system and flagellum is easy. the secretory system has the ability to rotate. it has all the necessary parts to do that, it just doesnt because why? it doesnt have the necessary parts to provide thrust. peptide bonds and enzymes from proteins attack to the outer membrane and this can provide a very basic propeller.

read through this:
Evolution of the bacterial flagellum

hopefully the actual research can answer it better than i can. consult the lengthly references section if you have questions on specifics.

you are still arguing that one system cannot change function in its evolution. i say again, almost every complicated system has started off functioning differently than it does now. the retina can be reduced to a heightened patch of light sensative skin cells in basic organisms. the flagellum can be reduced to the bacterial syringe, the bacterial syringe can be reduced to basic cell membrane secretory systems.

Originally Posted by Matthew

The problem with Behe's "irreducible complexity" isn't the definition of the term, per se. There are indeed plenty of complex biological systems that will fail if you take away even a single part. But I'd just call that "breakable complexity."

The problem is when he says that such systems can't develop through a succession of modifications, which is why he describes them as "irreducibly" complex, I suppose. If you take a system that already exists, and remove one of its parts, yes, it will likely not function -- now, or in the future. But why does that fact entail that, in the past, the system couldn't have had a lesser degree of the same function, or a different funciton entirely, or even no function at all? Seems a leap of logic to me.

Excellent, that is the first mistake made about IC.

It is not a statement about the past or future, or even the present.

It is an analysis of a function.

Again I integrated the temporal nature of functions with IC when I invented and expanded the concept of HIC.

I would guess that 90%+ of current system are HIC, at some point all systems probably were.

Systems can change from IC to HIC and vice versa.

HIC = Hybrid Irreducibly complex (not original but who cares).

It means that parts of the system are necessary for function and other parts aren't.

(Yes it is that simple and that clear)

By definition I argued that all systems are either HIC or pure IC, both contain an IC system so this feeling that Behe gives in his book like he found a special example or something is incorrect.

All systems have necessary components.

The eye is HIC, that means it has components that are not necessary.

The proposed evolution of the eye is also what I called IC improvement. IC improvements were a theoretical possibility proved by peeling a while back, he was attempting to show that I shouldn't differentiate between improvement and novelty by proving improvement can fail the guided mutation test; it did not have the effect on me that he was hoping for.

Originally Posted by Matthew

If I remove the wing rivets from an airplane, it won't fly. It does not follow that the airplane wasn't constructed over time, according to a step-by-step process.

I like analogies but you must be clear what parts of the analogy are related, planes are constructed by people with designs.

If a plane needed to fly to have selection pressure for better flying than missing rivets would remove that selection pressure as a possibility.

Originally Posted by Matthew

As far as I can tell, this is exactly what Behe is saying about biological systems (at least at the level of biochemistry): because they're breakable now, they couldn't have evolved before.

They have always been breakable, and the link between IC and non-evolvability is integrating selection pressure over time.

Originally Posted by Matthew

I would like an explanation of this statement.

Before the system is operational by definition there can be no selection pressure for that function.

Any change is then by definition random with respect to that function.

Since there selection for a non-existent function or improvement there is no accumulation of mutations beneficial to that function and that means there is no gradual selected change to create it. With respect to natural selection it does not exist.

Claiming that evolution can produce it is claiming that selection events will occur based on future benefit; thereby attributing planning (an intelligence) to a naturalistic process which cannot be there.

Originally Posted by Matthew

Okay, first things first. I've noticed you pointing out logical fallacies yourself. So certainly you must realize that all this is, is an argument from incredulity. The fact that you cannot conceive such a selection pressure, does not mean that there isn't one, or that somebody else can't conceive of it perfectly well.

The fact that such a selection pressure cannot exist except by chance is not a statement about my imagination.

If my arguments are sound there is no one on earth who can think of a selection pressure for a non-existent system. The closest (my arguments predict) they will come is co-option.

Originally Posted by Matthew

Meanwhile, here's a stab at answering the question, in a way that even integrates time.

Suppose we have a bacterium that uses a type I secretory system to attack its prey. But over time, that prey evolves a defense against the secretory system. (It's not hard to imagine that there would be pretty high selection pressure to do so.) Fortunately, this isn't the only way that the bacterium can absorb nutrients. Its numbers drop hugely, maybe it nearly gets wiped out by its former prey's new and effective defense. But because it wasn't completely specialized, it endures. It just no longer uses that secretory system; it's a vestigial organelle.

Over time, the parts of the genome that encode for this organelle undergo huge numbers of mutations. Some of these mutations cause serious problems for their possessors, who go extinct. Most, however, are selectively neutral: they don't affect the way the bacterium survives and reproduces. Some of these neutral mutations may not code at all; some may code for insignificant modifications to the vestigial secretory system.

I would like to point out that constructing useless machines will be slightly negative in selection pressure but that is not relevant to what you are about to say I am sure.

Originally Posted by Matthew

Eventually, however, a fortunate strain of the baceterium undergoes a mutation that does code for the organelle, and yields a significant modification -- a modification that for a change has a positive impact on survival and reproduction. The former secretory system lengthens and can provide locomotion.

This change is the issue at hand, it is well known to me and I admit that there is no law preventing any single mutation from doing anything.

My conclusions are about what evolution can produce.

It would be wrong to say evolution can produce a mutation, evolution operates on mutations.

Similarly it is incorrect to say evolution can produce a change or a new system which is claimed to be a lucky hit.

This genetic change will fail the guided mutation test, meaning the product is an IC change.

Now the reason Behe choose the most complicated machines he could find is revealed, he wanted to use the practical impossibility of spontaneous generation to prove ID.

Originally Posted by Matthew

It's rudimentary at first, but it does enable the bacterium to find its food and avoid its predators more effectively. There is therefore a selection pressure toward lengthening of the organelle. Further mutation, and even just ordinary variation subject to selection, pushes the organelle to lengthen over many generations. And eventually, the bacterium has developed something that we would recognize as a flagellum.

You'll forgive me for not responding to this part it is merely wrapping up the evolutionary story.

Originally Posted by Matthew

Does it work as a secretory system any longer? Nope. It broke. But it works just fine as a flagellum. Are there ways it could fail to work as a flagellum? Absolutely. It could break. But this certainly doesn't imply that it didn't evolve. And that's why I think "irreducible complexity" is a wrong-headed notion.

It does imply.

Originally Posted by Matthew

Now: This is a just-so story, and I make no claim about it being an accurate account of the actual evolution of anything.

You may come to realize some day that the same could be said for just about every evolutionary story, what makes some look elegant or plausible is good poetics and a healthy imagination.

Originally Posted by Matthew

But keep in mind, that's not what has to be done in order to show why "irreducible complexity" fails. IC makes claims about what is possible and impossible. This is a conceptual rather than an empirical matter.

Precisely.

Originally Posted by Matthew

Is my little tale above a piece of actual natural history? I have no idea, and in truth, I rather doubt it. But is it possible? I believe so, and I wouldn't be surprised if an actual evolutionary sequence resembled it.

Again you are correct, it is possible.

Your story in fact did not contain anything with which IC would take offense.

Originally Posted by Matthew

Complexity, so far as I can see, is always reducible back through time. So there's no reason why it can't evolve.

Depends on the building block size you consider sufficient.

One could apply the same concept as homology with secretory system to say that since proteins existed before flagella, flagella are not IC.

This not being the same sense of the word reducible as is used in the term IC.

Originally Posted by Matthew

By the by, I should add that if you want evidence for why "irreducible complexity" doesn't work, take a look at Chapter 5 of Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth. In particular, focus on the work of Richard Lenski, discussed by Dawkins on pp. 116-133.

Is it a good book?

Originally Posted by Matthew

One of the most interesting results involved E. coli evolving to metabolize citrate in the presence of oxygen -- but only after two mutations had occurred, and in a specific order. Despite the improbability of such an event, it did happen, and with highly beneficial effects for the E. coli lineage in which it did.

The first mutation is completely useless without the second. Take the second away, and you've got nothing. According to Behe, that's irreducible complexity, so it couldn't have evolved. But evolve it did.

Actually it spontaneously formed, Behe does not claim this cannot happen and has several examples of it in the edge of evolution to illustrate his point about the consequences of abandoning gradual selection.

Originally Posted by Matthew

One last comment on "irreducible complexity" and then I'm done with it.

True. But why must the modern and ancestral systems have the same selection pressure in order for the former to evolve from the latter?

If they are different then the accumulation of beneficial changes will be different.

i.e. what makes a good door may not make a good window, if it does it's by chance.

Originally Posted by Matthew

There is no such requirement!!! In fact, a modern system could evolve from an ancestral system precisely because the selection pressures change!

Provided the ancestral system begins to function differently bringing about a change in selection pressures, again this is skipping over the event in question.

Originally Posted by Bennedict

your idea of HIC is quite silly.

Well don't think I will stop using it for that reason

Originally Posted by Bennedict

i suppose you mean if you remove some parts of the eye, like the retina, the eye will not function which is true. however, the retina was the first to evolve and is thus a fundamental part of the eye.

There you go, you understand silly concepts great.

Originally Posted by Bennedict

thats like saying if you remove the stem from a flower it will not function like a flower. thats also true because the stem grows first.

and?

Originally Posted by Bennedict

if you remove the flower on some plants, the stem and plant will still survive and sometimes produce another flower. you cannot remove the part that first evolved because it is necessary for function. in fact, in the case of the eye, you can even demote the retina to regular skin cells with adapted, upgraded light sensitivity. every skin cell has a certain degree of light sensitivity. you cannot remove the cell membrane from the flagellum. this is not HIC, its evolution basics.

You may call it what you wish, I have long known that any attempt at arguing against something will require the use of it's own concepts as IC does evolution.

Originally Posted by Bennedict

the fact of the matter is if you removed every part of your eye except the retina, without ruining it, you will have functionality, so Behe is wrong about the eye. and ive never heard of Behe or anyone talk about HIC other than you.

That's correct they haven't

The human eye is IC in the context of our species but I agree with you that such a context has little meaning.

Originally Posted by Bennedict

secretory systems have a certain 'pressure' in both meanings. it's cell membrane is pressurized by these viruses it tries to excrete, and without a proper secretory system, it cannot excrete anything. certain proteins have peptide bonds and enzymes which can adhere to the inner membrane. secretion of certain chemicals can break down a small area of that inner membrane and the first stage of the secretory system can happen - access to the cell membrane. repeat for the cell membrane and you have access to the outer membrane. repeat again and you have a working secretory system. the selection pressure is one that states 'one small upgrade is better than none at all'. the stages happen one on top of the other because its very easy for a protein to bond to the upper most membrane from directly below it. its rare to have a secretory system where one or two of its stages are not in the same place as the last one. this is because of protein drift.

This is the reason I respond line by line, I have no idea what you are responding to if you are responding to anything.

Originally Posted by Bennedict

your question of selection pressure between secretory system and flagellum is easy. the secretory system has the ability to rotate. it has all the necessary parts to do that, it just doesnt because why? it doesnt have the necessary parts to provide thrust. peptide bonds and enzymes from proteins attack to the outer membrane and this can provide a very basic propeller.

Do you really think you've answered that question?

Originally Posted by Bennedict

read through this:
Evolution of the bacterial flagellum

hopefully the actual research can answer it better than i can. consult the lengthly references section if you have questions on specifics.

I will read it.

Originally Posted by Bennedict

you are still arguing that one system cannot change function in its evolution. i say again, almost every complicated system has started off functioning differently than it does now. the retina can be reduced to a heightened patch of light sensative skin cells in basic organisms. the flagellum can be reduced to the bacterial syringe, the bacterial syringe can be reduced to basic cell membrane secretory systems.

Yes I am, you may say the same thing as many times as you wish.

no, IC is silly because its obvious that you cannot remove the retina without losing functionality because the retina was the first part of the eye to evolve - everything else evolved on top of it. the problem with Behe and IC/ID supporters is they seem to think that every part of a feature or entire species, under the theory of evolution, evolved all at the same time and that is not what happens. you are an exception, with your idea of HIC. this is a similar argument to the wheel/leg thing you were talking about a few months ago. evolution happens by either slightly modifying an existing feature to be an upgrade of the same purpose or to serve a different function, or by allowing an organism a slight advantage over organisms that do not have that advantage. thus, while we are talking about the complex systems, like flagellum or eyeball, examples that are apparently irriducibly complex are in fact as you say hybrid irridicubly complex because you can in fact remove one part and retain functionality as Behe's definition describes. however, i have an objection to HIC in the fact that it is complicated evolution from a simpler system to a more complicated one and we can see that through looking at the evolutionary process, you cant remove ONE of the parts (not any part) because that one part is the foundational part of the system, ie the retina or the inner membrane ring in the flagellum. it is possible to retain functionality by removing parts in order of their evolution by tracing backwards the evolutionary process to the retina alone or the basic inner membrane - middle membrane secretory system. even the retina can be reduced to heavily light sensative skin cells.

Originally Posted by Bennedict

no, IC is silly because its obvious that you cannot remove the retina without losing functionality because the retina was the first part of the eye to evolve - everything else evolved on top of it.

That doesn't seem to follow.

Originally Posted by Bennedict

the problem with Behe and IC/ID supporters is they seem to think that every part of a feature or entire species, under the theory of evolution, evolved all at the same time and that is not what happens.

Behe is saying that is what must happen given the fact that there is no selection pressure.

He, unlike me and like many here; has made the mistake of calling a purely random event a process, specifically the process of evolution.

Dawkins is absolutely right, things don't simply appear; natural selection is the only proper axle of all evolutionary thought.

Originally Posted by Bennedict

you are an exception, with your idea of HIC. this is a similar argument to the wheel/leg thing you were talking about a few months ago. evolution happens by either slightly modifying an existing feature to be an upgrade of the same purpose or to serve a different function

Check your premises Bennedict, it is those premises I take issue with and I have named them many times.

Here again you assume that there is a always a slight modification that will by chance produce a new system.

This premise is called co-option.

Originally Posted by Bennedict

or by allowing an organism a slight advantage over organisms that do not have that advantage.

You hear me speak of and use the concept of natural selection in my arguments yet you like others who have tried to argue against IC feel the need to repeatedly go back and tell me what natural selection is.

Why not take the opportunity to point out where I have incorrectly defined or applied NS in my arguments; as that is the implication of this constant repetition.

Originally Posted by Bennedict

thus, while we are talking about the complex systems, like flagellum or eyeball, examples that are apparently irriducibly complex are in fact as you say hybrid irridicubly complex because you can in fact remove one part and retain functionality as Behe's definition describes. however, i have an objection to HIC in the fact that it is complicated evolution from a simpler system to a more complicated one and we can see that through looking at the evolutionary process, you cant remove ONE of the parts (not any part) because that one part is the foundational part of the system, ie the retina or the inner membrane ring in the flagellum. it is possible to retain functionality by removing parts in order of their evolution by tracing backwards the evolutionary process to the retina alone or the basic inner membrane - middle membrane secretory system. even the retina can be reduced to heavily light sensative skin cells.

Hence me saying that every system in biology is either IC or HIC.

I don't think it's correct to say that you can always remove parts in reverse order of proposed evolution.

Originally Posted by Freedom

That doesn't seem to follow.


Behe is saying that is what must happen given the fact that there is no selection pressure.

He, unlike me and like many here; has made the mistake of calling a purely random event a process, specifically the process of evolution.

Dawkins is absolutely right, things don't simply appear; natural selection is the only proper axle of all evolutionary thought.


Check your premises Bennedict, it is those premises I take issue with and I have named them many times.

Here again you assume that there is a always a slight modification that will by chance produce a new system.

This premise is called co-option.


You hear me speak of and use the concept of natural selection in my arguments yet you like others who have tried to argue against IC feel the need to repeatedly go back and tell me what natural selection is.

Why not take the opportunity to point out where I have incorrectly defined or applied NS in my arguments; as that is the implication of this constant repetition.


Hence me saying that every system in biology is either IC or HIC.

I don't think it's correct to say that you can always remove parts in reverse order of proposed evolution.

you have not incorrectly definied NS, you have coined the term HIC which in actuality, as far as i can see can be used as argument against IC. your HIC is a way of viewing the end result of natural selection.

every system in biology is either IC or HIC... no. we can trace the evolutionary time scale back in every complicated system, proving that systems can come ebout by the process of evolution. the eye and bacterial flagellum are neither IC nor HIC, so if you wish to give me some more examples ill try my best to outline the evolutionary process for you. but before you do, consult it with yourself as to how the system could have evolved, so as to stump me. the novel examples of IC (eye and flagellum) are easily refutable or i can easily direct you to material that can refute the claims of IC.

Originally Posted by Bennedict

you have not incorrectly definied NS, you have coined the term HIC which in actuality, as far as i can see can be used as argument against IC. your HIC is a way of viewing the end result of natural selection.

Actually it's just a statement about any given system, so long as you try to apply the premise 'all of these things were produced by random mutation filtered by natural selection' you are committing a begging the question fallacy.

Originally Posted by Bennedict

every system in biology is either IC or HIC... no.

That is definitively impossible.

Originally Posted by Bennedict

we can trace the evolutionary time scale back in every complicated system, proving that systems can come ebout by the process of evolution.

Once again I invite you to identify the logical basis of this statement. What in the action you call 'tracing' proves something was produced by the process of evolution?

Originally Posted by Bennedict

the eye and bacterial flagellum are neither IC nor HIC, so if you wish to give me some more examples ill try my best to outline the evolutionary process for you. but before you do, consult it with yourself as to how the system could have evolved, so as to stump me. the novel examples of IC (eye and flagellum) are easily refutable or i can easily direct you to material that can refute the claims of IC.

Again you will and cannot find any biological systems which are neither HIC or IC.

Reference their definitions to try.

Originally Posted by Freedom

Actually it's just a statement about any given system, so long as you try to apply the premise 'all of these things were produced by random mutation filtered by natural selection' you are committing a begging the question fallacy.


That is definitively impossible.


Once again I invite you to identify the logical basis of this statement. What in the action you call 'tracing' proves something was produced by the process of evolution?


Again you will and cannot find any biological systems which are neither HIC or IC.

Reference their definitions to try.

not impossible, most likely you havent grasped the concept of natural selection yet. why have you still not read any books on evolution? you make a claim like it is impossible for any system to have come about by evolution yet you havent bothered to educate yourself on the process. there are tons of evolutionary resources out there for you to learn, yet you choose to ignore them all and read a couple Behe books and you are convinced that evolution did not happen. theres a reason why 99% of biology professors, students, post-doctrates, hell, 99% of all scientists, hell, 99% of all highly educated people accept evolution fully... its because it not only makes biological sense, its absolutely true and has been proven to be true. you just need to look into it further.

tracing back... if you were a detective working on a murder case, you would trace the crime back with the evidence that you have. tracing back the scene will give you a good understanding of what exactly happened. otherwise youll never find the murderer. evolution works in exactly the same way because we cant see evolution happening, we have to work with the evidence. and sense its a time based process, we have to use time and trace it back to figure out what exactly happened.

heres two examples of systems that are neither IC nor HIC, the bacterial flagellum and the eye.

How Can Evolution Cause Irreducibly Complex Systems?

Let us imagine a species. Each animal has a workable biochemical system that just has component A. Then a mutation in one animal causes component B. B happens to make the system work better. B is optional, but it's valuable to the individual who contains this improved system. Darwinian natural selection will tend to spread the improvement, until eventually every member of the species inherits it. Now every copy of the biochemical system uses both A and B.

i was under the assumption that you knew natural selection did that. it seems you did not. any book on the subject will tell you this.

Originally Posted by Freedom

Excellent, that is the first mistake made about IC.

It is not a statement about the past or future, or even the present.

It is an analysis of a function.

As I said, the problem is not the definition per se. You and Behe can define anything however you want. The point that I was making was, what is done with that analysis of function? What Behe does with it is say, anything that is "irreducibly complex" can't have evolved, but had rather to have been intelligently designed. This is most definitely a claim about what happened in the past. And it is also a claim that doesn't follow from the definition of "irreducible complexity."

Again I integrated the temporal nature of functions with IC when I invented and expanded the concept of HIC.

I would guess that 90%+ of current system are HIC, at some point all systems probably were.

Systems can change from IC to HIC and vice versa.

HIC = Hybrid Irreducibly complex (not original but who cares).

It means that parts of the system are necessary for function and other parts aren't.

(Yes it is that simple and that clear)

By definition I argued that all systems are either HIC or pure IC, both contain an IC system so this feeling that Behe gives in his book like he found a special example or something is incorrect.

All systems have necessary components.

The eye is HIC, that means it has components that are not necessary.

All due respect, but I don't think it's that clear. I see no difference between IC and HIC. In either case, when a part of the system is removed, it ceases to function. That's IC. That's HIC. The only thing the "H" does is say that there's other stuff accompanying the system, which isn't relevant to the system's functionality. I don't see why IC itself can't say that.

The proposed evolution of the eye is also what I called IC improvement. IC improvements were a theoretical possibility proved by peeling a while back, he was attempting to show that I shouldn't differentiate between improvement and novelty by proving improvement can fail the guided mutation test; it did not have the effect on me that he was hoping for.

I'm afraid I have no idea what this paragraph means. You'll have to be clearer, or -- if it's not essential -- just drop it.

I like analogies but you must be clear what parts of the analogy are related, planes are constructed by people with designs.

You're drawing the wrong point from the analogy. Yes, it's true that the stepwise process of building an airplane involves people with designs. But the analogy was that both it and evolution involve stepwise processes. The fact that something won't function when certain parts are removed doesn't imply that those parts didn't come together through a processs. I.e., the fact that airplanes won't fly without wing rivets doesn't mean that airplanes just come into existence with wings.

If a plane needed to fly to have selection pressure for better flying than missing rivets would remove that selection pressure as a possibility.

How are you using the term "selection pressure?" I'm really not sure what to make of your use of the term.

They have always been breakable, and the link between IC and non-evolvability is integrating selection pressure over time.

Again, I have no idea what this means.

Please note how my example worked. There, "selection pressure over time" drove the evolution of one structure from another, and thus indicated that the structure in question was not irreducibly complex!

Like I said, I suspect you are using the notion of "selection pressure" in an idiosyncratic sense.

Before the system is operational by definition there can be no selection pressure for that function.

This is not true. Selection pressure in favor of a function can certainly pre-exist the structures by which that function is fulfilled.

Perhaps you are confusing functions and structures.

Any change is then by definition random with respect to that function.

This is partly true, if the changes in question are simple mutations. Even there, we have to be careful of the notion of "random." It doesn't mean uncaused, just unpredictable.

But moreover, it's not true at all if the change is brought about by natural selection itself. This is why it's called selection pressure: environmental factors "push" a given aspect of the organism to evolve in one direction rather than the other.

The initial change may well be random. Later changes, however, are not.

Probably the biggest misconception of all with respect to evolution by natural selection -- really and truly, THE biggest one -- is that it's a "chance" process. In fact, while mutation is certainly a matter of chance, natural selection is not a matter of chance at all!

Since there selection for a non-existent function or improvement there is no accumulation of mutations beneficial to that function and that means there is no gradual selected change to create it. With respect to natural selection it does not exist.

Again, not so. I'm not sure you understand how evolution by natural selection works. As soon as there is a mutation that is beneficial to the organism, selection will tend to promote it in the population of that organism, even if a refined version of that beneficial aspect does not yet exist. Indeed, what evolution says is that the more refined versions will come to exist because of the selection pressure in that direction! Flight didn't pre-exist the development of refined wings -- but less refined versions of such limbs existed before the more refined versions, because even those less refined versions conferred advantages to their possesors.

(Correlatively, mutations that are detrimental will be selected against, and selection will tend to push such things out of the population.)

Claiming that evolution can produce it is claiming that selection events will occur based on future benefit; thereby attributing planning (an intelligence) to a naturalistic process which cannot be there.

No. What evolution says is that the less refined versions are already experiencing present benefits. The stepwise changes that resulted in birds developing true wings and true flight didn't have to get that far. But at each step along the way, the structures that are "less refined" with respect to where things ended up were themselves "more refined" with respect to what came before. The less refined versions would no longer confer advantages -- but they did at the time.

As I've said, you don't appear very familiar with how natural selection works. This sort of confusion is why.

The fact that such a selection pressure cannot exist except by chance is not a statement about my imagination.

It was definitely a contingent thing, that's true. I'm not sure that amounts to "by chance." As noted earlier, you seem to overestimate the role of chance in evolution, insofar as natural selection is the very opposite of a "chance" process.

Nonetheless, you asked, "What selection pressure for any structure in say I secretory system for a flagellum can there be?" Your clear implication ws that there could be none, and that's just an argument from incredulity. It reflects your subjective limitations, not anything objective.

And that's why I presented an example of selection pressures that change over time (I "integrated selection pressure with time," as you might say), showing how a combination of genetic possibilities and ecological opportunities (as Sean Carroll might say) can push evolution in a given direction.

If my arguments are sound...

They are not. They seem based on a very poor understanding of how evolution by natural selection works.

... there is no one on earth who can think of a selection pressure for a non-existent system. The closest (my arguments predict) they will come is co-option.

Co-option is the very essence of how the evolutionary process works. The function doesn't pre-exist the organs that fulfill it. It's not sitting out there like an eternally pre-given Platonic form awaiting the structures for its realization.

So if co-option is as close as it comes, that's fine: it can't get any closer, and doesn't even try.

... I admit that there is no law preventing any single mutation from doing anything.

My conclusions are about what evolution can produce.

It would be wrong to say evolution can produce a mutation, evolution operates on mutations.

This is absolutely correct!

Similarly it is incorrect to say evolution can produce a change or a new system which is claimed to be a lucky hit.

And this is also correct, but seems to betray your misunderstanding. To wit: Natural selection is not a matter of luck!!! It is the very opposite of luck, in fact.

This genetic change will fail the guided mutation test, meaning the product is an IC change.

I'm afraid here you've lost me again. Mutations are not guided. The variations produced by natural selection aren't "guided," either, if this implies that they are toward a pre-given, final goal, whether set by an intelligence or not. But the variations produced by natural selection do tend to move in discrenible directions, given the circumstances.

Now the reason Behe choose the most complicated machines he could find is revealed, he wanted to use the practical impossibility of spontaneous generation to prove ID.

But evolution itself acknowledges the impossibility of spontaneously generated complexity!!! The mere fact that complex structures with complex functions don't "just happen" spontaneously is not sufficient to establish ID.

Okay, now the next part is particularly weak on your end. I had said that the fact that a flagellum could cease to function as a flagellum -- i.e., that it could break -- does not imply that it didn't evolve. This was the upshot of the entire hypothetical sequence of events I laid out with the bacteria example: There is a plausible way in which the flagellum could evolve from something else, and the fact that flagella can break doesn't contradict that narrative. Your entire response? Thus:

It does imply.

Mere counter-assertion, with no substantive discussion of the plausibility of that narrative at all. So I will simply reassert my conclusion: Breakability does not entail non-evolvability. Even something that evolves can break.

You may come to realize some day that the same could be said for just about every evolutionary story, what makes some look elegant or plausible is good poetics and a healthy imagination.

Not my point. In science, one should try to go beyond mere speculation. One should attempt to back up one's hypotheses. Insofar as I didn't do that, I made no claim of truth for the hypothetical narrative.

But what ID is saying is that the story itself makes no sense, simply because the final result wouldn't function if some of its parts were missing. And it is this claim of ID that itself makes no sense, in logical terms: there is absolutely no relation of logical entailment here; it's a logical non sequitur.

Which brings me to a few brief and curious comments:

Again you are correct, it is possible.

Your story in fact did not contain anything with which IC would take offense.

But if that's so, then what is the point of IC? What that story represents is a possible sequence of events by which a structure could evolve, even though that structure would fail to function if its parts were removed. ID via IC says that, if something would fail when its parts (or its essential parts, in your HIC sense) are removed, it can't have evolved! This is exactly the opposite of the point of my narrative!!!

One could apply the same concept as homology with secretory system to say that since proteins existed before flagella, flagella are not IC.

This not being the same sense of the word reducible as is used in the term IC.

Then in what sense is IC using the term? I confess, I no longer have any clue what IC says is "irreducible" about the structures it discusses. Enlighten me on the meaning of "irreducible."

Is it a good book?

Very. I recommend it highly, and it may correct what appear to some significant misunderstandings of evolution here.

Actually it spontaneously formed, Behe does not claim this cannot happen and has several examples of it in the edge of evolution to illustrate his point about the consequences of abandoning gradual selection.

Again you've lost me. What is "it?" The mutations? The capacity for citrate metabolism in the bacteria? Something else entirely?

I think we can rule out the power to metabolize citrate. It did not just happen, but was the result of a pair of mutations, taken in concert.

Even the mutations are only spontaneous in the sense that we have no idea what caused them. But they didn't "just happen"; something caused them, even if we know not what.

So I find your comment completely confusing. I don't understand what you're talking about.

If they are different then the accumulation of beneficial changes will be different.

Yes. But this does not imply that benefical feature B cannot have evolved from beneficial feature A. That, to reiterate, was the entire point of my hypothetical narrative. The benefits are indeed different. And yet the one evolved from the other.

i.e. what makes a good door may not make a good window, if it does it's by chance.

But if what makes a good door changes by natural selection in order to become a good window -- at which point it's no longer a good door -- this is not by chance. Because natural selection is not a chance process.

Provided the ancestral system begins to function differently bringing about a change in selection pressures, again this is skipping over the event in question.

What event is skipped? You're saying that the system changes the selection pressures that bring it about?

-sigh-

I'm sorry, Freedom, but I really find it difficult to follow your reasoning. I don't think you're using terms the way evolutionary biologists use them.

Originally Posted by Bennedict

not impossible, most likely you havent grasped the concept of natural selection yet. why have you still not read any books on evolution?

This is the same build up to quiting the argument that I have seen a dozen times.

A claimed 'lack of understanding' in others which cannot be illustrated in any way except that it is said to cause contradiction with one's own statements is a variant of ad hominem and I will treat it as such.

Originally Posted by Bennedict

you make a claim like it is impossible for any system to have come about by evolution yet you havent bothered to educate yourself on the process. there are tons of evolutionary resources out there for you to learn, yet you choose to ignore them all and read a couple Behe books and you are convinced that evolution did not happen. theres a reason why 99% of biology professors, students, post-doctrates, hell, 99% of all scientists, hell, 99% of all highly educated people accept evolution fully... its because it not only makes biological sense, its absolutely true and has been proven to be true. you just need to look into it further.

Appeal to authority

Originally Posted by Bennedict

tracing back... if you were a detective working on a murder case, you would trace the crime back with the evidence that you have. tracing back the scene will give you a good understanding of what exactly happened. otherwise youll never find the murderer. evolution works in exactly the same way because we cant see evolution happening, we have to work with the evidence. and sense its a time based process, we have to use time and trace it back to figure out what exactly happened.

The process as you seem to use it apparently entirely composed of identifying similarity and ranking according to complexity.

That alone does not prove anything, when I asked you the question I assumed you would give logic towards showing why it would.

Originally Posted by Bennedict

heres two examples of systems that are neither IC nor HIC, the bacterial flagellum and the eye.

There are two examples of either IC or HIC systems.

The definitions allow no other possibility, all systems are either IC or HIC, you may ignore that but you aren't going to get me to.

Originally Posted by Matthew

As I said, the problem is not the definition per se. You and Behe can define anything however you want. The point that I was making was, what is done with that analysis of function? What Behe does with it is say, anything that is "irreducibly complex" can't have evolved, but had rather to have been intelligently designed. This is most definitely a claim about what happened in the past. And it is also a claim that doesn't follow from the definition of "irreducible complexity."

Correct, IC is a concept, the argument made with IC is a claim about what happened. (confusingly also called IC do to it's role in the argument).

The supportive statement in that argument is the integration of selection pressure (as I have said).

For IC to mean 'not evolvable' right from the get go that would have to be it's definition which would make it a tautologous but useless idea.

Originally Posted by Matthew

All due respect, but I don't think it's that clear. I see no difference between IC and HIC.

Then you need to think about it more.

I will give the definitions again to help.

An IC system is - A system in which the removal of any part or component removes the function.

A HIC system is - A system in which the removal of one or more parts/components removes the function.

All HIC systems have a IC core, all IC systems fit the definition of HIC.

I call systems that fit the definition of HIC but not IC HIC, I call the ones that fit both IC.

This kind of categorical delimitation is extremely common in human communication so I am sure you can understand.

Originally Posted by Matthew

In either case, when a part of the system is removed, it ceases to function. That's IC. That's HIC. The only thing the "H" does is say that there's other stuff accompanying the system, which isn't relevant to the system's functionality.

Necessary not relevant, but otherwise yes.

Originally Posted by Matthew

I don't see why IC itself can't say that.

The definition of IC says that any part can be removed to remove function, that means there are no parts that aren't necessary.

Originally Posted by Matthew

You're drawing the wrong point from the analogy. Yes, it's true that the stepwise process of building an airplane involves people with designs. But the analogy was that both it and evolution involve stepwise processes. The fact that something won't function when certain parts are removed doesn't imply that those parts didn't come together through a processs. I.e., the fact that airplanes won't fly without wing rivets doesn't mean that airplanes just come into existence with wings.

That is the important part about the analogy, humans don't try to fly it until it's done.

If natural selection was functioning on the airplanes step by step construction then it would have to fly for there to be any selection events for flying at all.

Humans put bolts on a hunk of metal sitting on the ground knowing that if they do everything correctly it will fly, natural selection wouldn't have any use for a hunk of metal sitting on the ground.

In simpler terms, flying(functioning) airplanes do come into existance with wings

Originally Posted by Matthew

How are you using the term "selection pressure?" I'm really not sure what to make of your use of the term.

I am using it to mean there is selection for, as in if a mutation happens and there is selection pressure for it, it is selected.

Originally Posted by Matthew

Again, I have no idea what this means.

Please note how my example worked. There, "selection pressure over time" drove the evolution of one structure from another, and thus indicated that the structure in question was not irreducibly complex!

Like I said, I suspect you are using the notion of "selection pressure" in an idiosyncratic sense.

Integrating over time means you consider the selection pressure at every point in time.

Originally Posted by Matthew

This is not true. Selection pressure in favor of a function can certainly pre-exist the structures by which that function is fulfilled.

Example please, note I have already dealt with the possibility of coincidence by identifying it as pure chance.

Originally Posted by Matthew

Perhaps you are confusing functions and structures.

Perhaps you are.

Originally Posted by Matthew

This is partly true, if the changes in question are simple mutations. Even there, we have to be careful of the notion of "random." It doesn't mean uncaused, just unpredictable. But moreover, it's not true at all if the change is brought about by natural selection itself. This is why it's called selection pressure: environmental factors "push" a given aspect of the organism to evolve in one direction rather than the other.

Yes, I have been through all this before and have already condensed the conclusions into a tool to tell what is random and what is 'guided' by selection.

Originally Posted by Matthew

The initial change may well be random. Later changes, however, are not.

The initial change is the formation of function.

Originally Posted by Matthew

Probably the biggest misconception of all with respect to evolution by natural selection -- really and truly, THE biggest one -- is that it's a "chance" process. In fact, while mutation is certainly a matter
of chance, natural selection is not a matter of chance at all!

I agree to the second statement, I have no comment on whether it is the biggest misconception.

Using the word chance in the context that I am, means that no process can be 'by chance'. The evolutionary process is a process.

Originally Posted by Matthew

Again, not so.

There was a typo in there:

Since there selection for a non-existent
Should be
Since there is no selection for a non-existent

Originally Posted by Matthew

I'm not sure you understand how evolution by natural selection works.

If I had a dime...

Look how does one go from making a statement which everyone agrees is correct about a fact of natural selection to not understanding natural selection?

Originally Posted by Matthew

As soon as there is a mutation that is beneficial to the organism, selection will tend to promote it in the population of that organism, even if a refined version of that beneficial aspect does not yet exist.

Yes

Originally Posted by Matthew

Indeed, what evolution says is that the more refined versions will come to exist because of the selection pressure in that direction! Flight didn't pre-exist the development of refined wings -- but less refined versions of such limbs existed before the more refined versions, because even those less refined versions conferred advantages to their possesors.

Co-option, those proposed limbs which gave flight could not do so under the selection pressure for flight.

Originally Posted by Matthew

No. What evolution says is that the less refined versions are already experiencing present benefits. The stepwise changes that resulted in birds developing true wings and true flight didn't have to get that far. But at each step along the way, the structures that are "less refined" with respect to where things ended up were themselves "more refined" with respect to what came before. The less refined versions would no longer confer advantages -- but they did at the time.

In other words selection for flight was not the selection pressure that caused formation.

Originally Posted by Matthew

It was definitely a contingent thing, that's true. I'm not sure that amounts to "by chance." As noted earlier, you seem to overestimate the role of chance in evolution, insofar as natural selection is the very opposite of a "chance" process.

There is no role for chance (or should not be).

If a mutation is in the realm of possibility (that's an odds calculation) it can be assumed to be possible for evolution.

Originally Posted by Matthew

Nonetheless, you asked, "What selection pressure for any structure in say I secretory system for a flagellum can there be?" Your clear implication ws that there could be none, and that's just an argument from incredulity. It reflects your subjective limitations, not anything objective.

It implied there could be none and there is none, it seems to reflect the subjective limitations of the entire body of human beings and perhaps the objective definition of the word natural selection.

Originally Posted by Matthew

And that's why I presented an example of selection pressures that change over time (I "integrated selection pressure with time," as you might say), showing how a combination of genetic possibilities and ecological opportunities (as Sean Carroll might say) can push evolution in a given direction.

They changed after you hand-waved function into existance.

Originally Posted by Matthew

They are not. They seem based on a very poor understanding of how evolution by natural selection works.

You people don't seem to be getting my response to this sort of comment, let's see how else can I put it...

"Bla, Bla.... Bla"

I don't and shouldn't care about your assertions about my ignorance if you cannot provide even one example of a premise I hold that is wrong.

Originally Posted by Matthew

Co-option is the very essence of how the evolutionary process works. The function doesn't pre-exist the organs that fulfill it. It's not sitting out there like an eternally pre-given Platonic form awaiting the structures for its realization.

Then you will have to make an argument as to the existance of co-option in specific relation to the isolation of functional sequences.

Originally Posted by Matthew

So if co-option is as close as it comes, that's fine: it can't get any closer, and doesn't even try.

Very good, this is where I left off with peeling, I await your response eagerly.

Originally Posted by Matthew

Natural selection is not a matter of luck!!! It is the very opposite of luck, in fact.

Which is why it is incorrect.

Originally Posted by Matthew

I'm afraid here you've lost me again. Mutations are not guided.

It's a misnomer, guided genetic change is what it should be called.

Originally Posted by Matthew

The variations produced by natural selection aren't "guided," either, if this implies that they are toward a pre-given, final goal, whether set by an intelligence or not. But the variations produced by natural selection do tend to move in discrenible directions, given the circumstances.

I realize it's a post facto conceptualization of function to say that there is an improved direction and a less efficient direction.

If you keep improving a function you will get a very improved function, you can validly call that the goal of natural selection even if it doesn't 'know' it itself.

Originally Posted by Matthew

But evolution itself acknowledges the impossibility of spontaneously generated complexity!!!

Rational evolution does, but 'recognize' is an odd action for a theory to be capable of.

Do you mean it is used as a premise?

Originally Posted by Matthew

The mere fact that complex structures with complex functions don't "just happen" spontaneously is not sufficient to establish ID.

Agreed, it was Behe who thought he was ready to prove ID after disproving irrational evolution. I am not.

Originally Posted by Matthew

Mere counter-assertion, with no substantive discussion of the plausibility of that narrative at all. So I will simply reassert my conclusion: Breakability does not entail non-evolvability. Even something that evolves can break.

It was a counter-counter assertion.

Originally Posted by Matthew

But if that's so, then what is the point of IC? What that story represents is a possible sequence of events by which a structure could evolve, even though that structure would fail to function if its parts were removed. ID via IC says that, if something would fail when its parts (or its essential parts, in your HIC sense) are removed, it can't have evolved! This is exactly the opposite of the point of my narrative!!!

Your narrative did not show it evolving, it did as bennedict has been doing this 'tracing'.

If you were expecting IC to claim that any given mutation can't happen or that any given co-option can't happen you were mistaken.

Just mutation and just co-option are random and cannot compose the evolutionary concept.

Selection must negate randomness and produce pattern.

What you still have not gotten was that the 'beef' of what IC (the argument) is talking about, the actual part that is not and cannot be evolution is:

"Eventually, however, a fortunate strain of the baceterium undergoes a mutation that does code for the organelle, and yields a significant modification -- a modification that for a change has a positive impact on survival and reproduction. The former secretory system lengthens and can provide locomotion."

This is the hand waved production of function, I see no mention of selection pressures, time or any other of the answers I have asked for.

I do not consider it valid that you included these before and after the event in question.

I nor Behe ever claimed that a new system would not be selected for and refined or that an old system could become vestigial.

Originally Posted by Matthew

Then in what sense is IC using the term? I confess, I no longer have any clue what IC says is "irreducible" about the structures it discusses. Enlighten me on the meaning of "irreducible."

The system is irreducible as in you cannot reduce it's complexity without losing it's function, not irreducible as in you can point out homologies in it's parts.

Originally Posted by Matthew

Again you've lost me. What is "it?" The mutations? The capacity for citrate metabolism in the bacteria? Something else entirely?

Yes, the same it you claimed evolved.

Originally Posted by Matthew

I think we can rule out the power to metabolize citrate. It did not just happen, but was the result of a pair of mutations, taken in concert.

Same thing without a selection event.

Originally Posted by Matthew

Even the mutations are only spontaneous in the sense that we have no idea what caused them. But they didn't "just happen"; something caused them, even if we know not what.

I am calling any single or string of unselected mutations random, therefore any positive result spontaneously generated.

Originally Posted by Matthew

Yes. But this does not imply that benefical feature B cannot have evolved from beneficial feature A. That, to reiterate, was the entire point of my hypothetical narrative. The benefits are indeed different. And yet the one evolved from the other.

Yes it does imply (counter-assertion).

Originally Posted by Matthew

But if what makes a good door changes by natural selection in order to become a good window -- at which point it's no longer a good door -- this is not by chance. Because natural selection is not a chance process.

Yes if you change the function the selection pressure changes, but how do you change the function without changing the selection pressure?

(random!)

Originally Posted by Matthew

What event is skipped? You're saying that the system changes the selection pressures that bring it about?

The part where the flagellum starts to operate.

Originally Posted by Freedom

This is the same build up to quiting the argument that I have seen a dozen times.

A claimed 'lack of understanding' in others which cannot be illustrated in any way except that it is said to cause contradiction with one's own statements is a variant of ad hominem and I will treat it as such.


Appeal to authority


The process as you seem to use it apparently entirely composed of identifying similarity and ranking according to complexity.

That alone does not prove anything, when I asked you the question I assumed you would give logic towards showing why it would.


There are two examples of either IC or HIC systems.

The definitions allow no other possibility, all systems are either IC or HIC, you may ignore that but you aren't going to get me to.

appeal to authority?? are you serious? please dont tell me you joined the fartingle club. we were getting along so well fighting against the common enemy. no, it is not an appeal to authority, the evidence is there, its massive and conclusive and thats the reason why its accepted by such brilliant people.

but i must ask, if i may, what makes you think that you have as good of an understanding of evolution as, say Mathiew, pandion or i? you have not read any books on evolution, you have no formal training in evolutionary theory, so how do you know you have sufficient knowledge? the internet is a good source of information, but its no where near the type of information you can get from reading a good book on the subject or, going one step further, taking a couple classes in university for it. its possible that when people say things like "you dont know anything about evolution", its true, you dont - and maybe you would benefit yourself from venturing further to learning the subject.

identifying similarities in structures that appear to be intermediates and matching them up with the proposed evolutionary hypothesis and matching that up to the knowledge of the evolutionary process and you will start to understand that these complex systems COULD have formed from a process. not that it did form the way that is proposed, but it COULD have, and in fact it could have formed a number of ways by evolution. every irreducibly complex example COULD have arisen from the process of evolution, thus disproving IC at its fundamental principles. read:
How Can Evolution Cause Irreducibly Complex Systems?

HIC is basically saying that if a certain part of a system is removed, it will cease function which is true, but that doesnt have anything to do with irreducibility. its obvious that if a complex system evolved from a more basic one, it has to have had an initiating system or part that cannot be removed when the system becomes more complex. if you have a building and you remove a window, it stays standing, but if you remove the foundation from that building, it will topple over. that is because the window was built on top of a wall which was built on top of the foundation, so it is not essential to the support of the building. if you remove the foundation, that brings down the entire building, because it is essential for support. the evolution of a complex system works the same way. remove the retina and the eye ceases function. that doesnt mean the eye is at all irreducible, its just that the retina is the foundation part of the structure.

i have provided you ways in which the two textbook IC examples COULD have evolved, and you claim they are HIC, but i object to your idea of HIC. so please, if everything in biology is either HIC or IC, provide me with some more examples of systems that are supposedly IC (since HIC is just a creationist manipulation of complex evolution. but at least you acknowledge that to a certain degree, the system could have evolved).

Originally Posted by Freedom

This is the same build up to quiting the argument that I have seen a dozen times.

A claimed 'lack of understanding' in others which cannot be illustrated in any way except that it is said to cause contradiction with one's own statements is a variant of ad hominem and I will treat it as such.


Appeal to authority

You obviously do not know what the Appeal to authority logical fallacy. That is when you say 'So and so, an authority on xxx, makes a statement on something that is not in their field. For example, if you quote an electrical engineer about biology, that is an appeal to authority

However , if you quote a biologist about biology, or a physicist about physics, then that is not the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.