Irreduceable Complexity

Hi ArachnoYou are all missing the point that Behe made. If you read his book you'll see that he acknowledges that there are tens of 1000s of papers on molecular evolution but almost none of them deal with the origin of genuinely novel proteins and systems. Evolutionists track homologous genes - they'll study supposed duplicaiton events (Haemoglobins etc) and they'll study well founded horizontal transfer. But there is almost no literature on (i) the origin of genuinely new protien families and (ii) the origin of actual subsytems - descibing which proteins first appeared, where from, how they could do the job alone etc. There might be 10 papers on Medline which could be said to cover this area!Almost everyone who says they study evoltuion either (i) studies microevotluion or (ii) studies homoologies that just as well could be the signature of a common designer. Almost no-one actually answers the quesiton of where the things that don
t have precursors came from.I'll check out the abstracts on that site and give you a professional opinion ASAP.

MarkI thought I had answered this - sorry. If the system is IC then my first assumption is that it is designed. Like I said earlier, IC systems could potentially be natural but as IC seems to be a systematic feature of life I lean on the other view (). And, yes, ICness is not digital - something might look fairly IC or extremely IC. I personally believe that all of the cellular systems of life are designed and that natural selction has simply optimzed some of these for altered circumstances via point mutations. This belief is well supported but I can't prove it.