Why haven't we observed mutations of new body parts?

I'll have a look, thanks

I've done some more searching here and on Google. This article seems to be the most helpful one I've found. In other words, it's da genes stupid

I believe you don't understand the meaning of Irreducible complexity. Try looking it up.You give yourself away when you refer to the "irreducible complexity" of an atom. Evolution doesn't concern the development of the atom. In fact, I'd guess that a majority of evolutionists consider nature and its elements to be without beginning.Irreducible complexity concerns the inability of a biological unit to function without any one of its parts, and thus the corresponding conclusion that the unit could not have evolved through slow steps, each intermediate step being essentially non-functional.It doesn't have anything to do with the ability of modern science to understand something.

Id say that trying to 'explain the irreducible complexity' should be your opponent job in as much as he needs to show that some exists at all. The other major requirement for that would be to have a rigorous definition of IC, I know that Behe himself has had a couple of different ones.One issue which will clearly heavily impact any discussion of signalling is crosstalk. Very many signalling pathways use the same downstream effectors and consequently there can be considerable interplay between different pathways and the loss of one element of a particular signalling pathway need not lead to a total loss of function for the upstream receptor.I don't think you should be required to try and explain away the supposed irreducible complexity of a system until it has actually been shown to be irreducibly complex.TTFN,WK

Since evolution isn't simply a process by which parts are added, but a process by which parts are taken away as well, "irreducible complexity" is simply a scare term with no relevance - and certainly no obstacle - to evolution.No irreducibly complex structure has ever been found. Indeed, there's mathematical evidence that all living things occupy a very small fraction of the biological sample space - precisely, in fact, the portion of the sample space that can be reached without depending on neutral or useless proto-adaptations.

If IC is defined as something that won't function if a piece is taken away then there are lots of IC parts. However, that doesn't say anything about their evolution (as you point out).

I doubt it. Consider, for instance, mechanical wear. Friction of moving parts erodes materials - takes parts away.If the complex mechanisms that surrounded us were truly IC, then even one atom's-worth of wear would break the machine. No such machine could be operated at all, because the slightest, undetectable wear - one part being taken away - and the machine would be done.Machines don't work like that. Sure, there are parts that they can't function without, but that doesn't mean that every single missing part, or part of a part, grinds the machine to a halt.By the strict definition there's no such thing as an IC machine. There are always parts you can take away.

It helps to look at more obvious examples to see the flaw in the reasoning behind IC.You said

quote:

---

Irreducible complexity concerns the inability of a biological unit to function without any one of its parts, and thus the corresponding conclusion that the unit could not have evolved through slow steps, each intermediate step being essentially non-functional.

​

It doesn't have anything to do with the ability of modern science to understand something.

---

Evolution isn't about adding whole new fully functional parts to already existing systems. It's about modifying already existing parts in minute steps over long periods of time.Take a look at the computer. If you remove the harddrive in your copmuter, it will undoubtedly stop functioning. Therefore, it must be irreducibly complex, correct? And yet computers once upon a time didn't have harddrives in them. Rather, they had primitive versions of a harddrive. They had disks.Or how about the memory chips? If you remove the memory, the computer will stop functioning. Therefore, it must be irreducibly complex, correct? And yet computers once upon a time didn't have memory chips in them. They had vacuum tubes and transistors.But if you must, let's look at a biological system. The eye is used very often by the ID movement as an example of irreducibe complexity. And yet we have examples of more primitive eyes from light sensitive cells on microorganisms to the eyespots on the flatworm to the eyes without lens on the nautilus to the human eye. At this point, the IDist will point out that science doesn't know every micro-step of the evolution of the eye, and thus the eye must be irreducibly complex.How is this not falling back to the current ignorance of science?

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

As feathers (instead of scales) on the front leg or an arm. Because it was an arm, not a stump. Aside from being an arm, feathers on the arm would also help regulate internal temperature. Small, incremental mutations that on a large scale proved better suited to the environment.Next question please.

Careful there. I think IC in its most useful definition would actually imply some vital subset of parts that is fully and completely interdependent, not that the whole machine is fully interdependent. Your particular argument is something of a straw man.

Even based on this definition, IC is still a strawman (a bad one at that). Evolution doesn't say every once in a while POOF a completely new component appears out of nowhere within a biological system. If this were true, then yes we would expect to remove the components one by one while the overall system would still be working.Again, I have to point out the bleedingly obvious example of a computer. In order to even turn it on, you need at least a motherboard, a cpu, memory, a harddrive, and a power source. Take any of these out and the whole thing is pretty much a piece of useless junk. According to this IC argument, the computer is then an IC device.But if we look at the history of the computer, what I just described didn't just show up on the market. The computer went through many phases, from a bunch of vacuum tubes to transisters to microchips. The IC argument makes it out to look like the evolution side claims that the computer started out with just a cpu, then over time a mother board appears out of nowhere, and over more time a harddrive came out of nowhere, etc. That's not how the development of computers worked, and that's certainly not how the evolution of biological machines worked.

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

Granted, but it's still bad form to attack a strawman with a strawman. Except in flash cartoons. To which the "savvy" creationist would immediately pounce and say "AHA! But a computer is designed by an intelligent designer, and you invalidate your original argument, QED." And completely ignore the scenario with which you immediately follow up your statement.Perhaps the arguments for evolution are themselves irreducibly complex to some people, which would make IC really an argument from incredulity/ignorance.Edited by bernerbits, : Clarifying some stuff.Edited by bernerbits, : hmmmmmmm

Even when this is the case, you can't just say that the computer is irreducibly complex simply because the computer went through many stages before the current ones on the market. And no doubt it will continue to evolve.The entire IC argument ultimately boils down to an ever unchanging biological system that was poofed into existence by a creator (I know this is not what they are literally saying but they've been hinting at this for years). Why do you think so many creationists rally to ID and IC so much?

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

I dunno. Most creationists seem to have one or two pet defenses that they feel are invulnerable, and when they feel they are losing ground on one defense they switch to the other.(Granted, from what I have seen these defenses are built on fallacy, ignorance, deception, and/or misdirection and I have yet to see a creationist argument that is truly supportive of their position as a scientific one.)If you continue to debate (most) creationists from a rational perspective you will continue to be frustrated as they dance around claiming victory simply because they successfully made you chase your own tail trying to clarify this or that finer scientific concept in the name of intellectual honesty. If you give up they will claim victory because they got the last word in.I'm hoping there are some creationists on here that will give me some *real* food for thought. Failing that, people who can help me expand my debate skills on the subject.

Well no, you can still fetch a decent penny on eBay for 'em.I actually was wondering about Behe's famous mousetrap example. Not too hard to conjure that up, actually. It could have started accidentally with a pit, then a pit covered with leaves, then a pit covered with leaves and bait, then a pit covered with leaves and bait with a trap door, then an upside-down version of a pit with bait and leaves (a box trap), then a spring-loaded cage with bait, then a spring-loaded cage with just the door and the floor. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if that was pretty close.Of course, any number of examples to the creationist is just that, an example. Not proof. Not evidence. Just meaningless contrived deception.Edited by bernerbits, : My verbiage smells of elderberries.