demallien
Posts: 79
Joined: Jan. 2007
|
| Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 03 2007,18:46) | Demallion,
You ask how I can explain why the process listed above isn't sufficient. First off, there is no process listed above, except that that author of that quote (and I have stressed this twice now that it wasn't me) believes that further mutations could accomplish an IC system. An unspecified IC system. So somebody says that he sees no reason why more mutations couldn't accomplish an IC system.
So what you are asking is why don't I think the mechanism of NDE, which is really random mutation, isn't sufficient. I hope you realize it's a pretty big question.
Of course, finding it insufficient, I then have to wonder - so what the heck did happen? Wouldn't we all like to know.
Let me point out that the scepticism over NDE isn't that small adjustments like that don't happen, but that they can lead to new body plans, or IC systems. |
Avocationist,
OK, so your two objections are speciation and irreducible complexity? I ask, because this statement was made in the passive voice in your last comment.
Anyway, assuming that these are in fact your objections (why raise them if not?), I'll try to address them.
Firstly, speciation (again, your phrase was "new body plan", but I assume that we are actually talking about speciation, correct me if I'm wrong). From a ToE perspective, speciation is just two populations that are reproductively seperated accumulating mutations up to the point where the two populations can no longer interbreed - at which point you have a new species.
You are aware of course that major changes can be caused to a "body plan" by simple one off mutations, aren't you? Look up 'homeobox' on wikipedia for a good discussion. Of course, most mutations of this type produce non-functional body parts, but once the base change to the body plan has been obtained, I'm hopeful that you would agree that standard evolution could add in incremental functionality bit by bit.
I'm happy to go into further detail on this if you wish, but in general, my point is that changes to body plan can change dramatically in response to point mutations. That, plus speciation as I have described above is all that is necessary to go from a 6 legged insect for example, to an 8 legged arachnid...
As for IC, what can I say but bah humbug. This canard has been refuted so many times that I don't understand how it can still be getting discussed. Basically, imagine the following hypothetical: There is a function performed by a cell-level machine, and this machine requires 20 separate components. Through mutation the cellulaire machine acquires a new capability which is far more advantageous than the capability of the old machine - the organism can eat a wider range of foods for example.
But the thing is, all of those parts that were there for the original function just aren't needed for the new function, which only needs 13 parts to be functional. So those unneeded are quietly dropped by evolution, one by one, inthe interest of efficiency (the energy used to build unneeded machine parts could be used elsewhere). Eventually, we arrive at a point where only the needed 13 parts are left in the machine.
A human observer that arrives at this point may be left wondering how such a machine, which apparently would need all 13 parts to be developed at once, could possibly have evolved. That is pretty much the argument for IC. ID theory holds that something which is IC is proof against evolution. As my hypothetical machine described above demonstrates however, this is not true. To invalidate evolution, you would actually have to show that there is no step by step evolutionary pathway to arrive at the IC system. No-one has ever successfully been able to do this.
You may like to ask yourself why ID researchers aren't actively trying to nail down such a system. It's an obvious avenue of research, and as a bonus, it would actually be scientific refutation of the theory of evolution. But, despite having had this flaw in IC explained to them over and over again, they haven't even changed from IC to "Non-incremental pathways". Apparently even the ID movement itself doesn't take IC seriously enough to bother researching it. I suggest you do the same and throw IC out the window as an idea.
PS: there's no 'o' in my pseudo...
|
