quote:
I'll probably have a couple once I read Behe's book. As of right now, I would think every irreducibly complex system requires at least a two simultaneous mutations. Since by definition, an irreducibly complex system cannot be deconstructed piece by piece, it cannot have been constructed step by step, or one mutaiton at a time, and so at one point two or more steps must have been down at the same time to make it become irreducibly complex.
That would be wrong. Irreducible complexity can be arrived at in a number of ways - Behe's argument assumes that "parts" are merely added (never lost), never change and partial assemblies never co-opted from systems with different functions.
At the genetic level neutral mutations can and do spread through populations. Thus there is only a need for simultaneous mutations if every single mutation would be detrimental on its own.
quote:
Sometimes, hearing some evolutionists, it seems as though Neo-Darwinism has no limits in its capacity to create, but I do think that there is a limit, an edge, to the powers of Neo-Darwinism. Even on a theoretical level. (considering a finite amount of time of course)
That would also be wrong - it is just that the limits are not exceeded in any known case. (The existence of limits is quite clear !)
Also I should warn you that there are a lot of traps in probability. One of them is arguing from hindsight. Simply arguing that the exact sequence of events is incredibly unlikely is meaningless because every every sufficiently long sequence of events is incredibly unlikely. Toss a coin 30 times, recording the sequence of heads and tails - the odds of getting that sequence are a billion to one against.