A point about probability

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.

quote:

---

I am not an expert on Behe's argument of irreducible complexity, but I do think every point you have brought up here have been answered by Behe on his blog (I don't check it regularly thoug hI can't really direct you on that)

---

Even if Behe has offered answers he cannot rule those possibilities out altogether. Thus your point is still incorrect.

quote:

---

Neutral mutations do not exist, only nearly-neutral mutations do (which have been redefined by Kimuara is effectively neutral mutations)

---

You mean that neutral mutations (by the standard definition) really do exist. Your personal hair-splitting definition may be convenient to you, but because it relies on differences too small to be significant it offers nothing of relevance to this discussion.

quote:

---

Well obviously the argument Behe makes in his recent books is that some aspects of the biodiversity we see implies that these limits have to have been exceeded.

---

Actually he argues for his own limits (which - according to comments I have seen) do not appear to be real limits.

quote:

---

On the other hand, none the gradual formations of any of the systems that are been discussed here has been witnessed or documented, they have only been assumed. Thus I would think it is not arguing from hindsight

---

Yes, it would be arguing from hindsight - even more so than in the case of the golf example. At least in the case of the golf shot there is a genuine goal (to get the ball in the hole). You would be assuming an explicit goal to produce the observed system - when there is no goal to even produce a system performing the same task. It is only by hindsight that you know of the existence and function of the system. If evolution had gone some other course you would be looking at a completely different system in a completely different species and calling THAT too improbable to evolve.