Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall's experiments

Hello, Siggy, and welcome to EvC. This is not true. Consider, for example, A and B are parts of a simple "IC" system. Then C is added -- C is not necessary, but it does help make the process a little bit better. ABC is better than AB alone. But then a mutation turns A into A'. A' works with the combination BC much, much better than A did -- A'BC is much, much better than ABC. The only problem is, if you take away C then A'B doesn't work at all. Thus, it appears as if A'BC is completely irreducible. But it's not -- you just don't currently see how A'BC evolved from simpler, reducible precursors.So it is not really the case that you can look at a system and tell that it absolutely could not have evolved.- Sure. If that 1% works just good enough to impart a reproductive advantage to the possessor, then it will be selected for.-And I couldn't resist: Great! You have just disproved the "Living organisms are made of Legos" theory. And so science advances.

---

I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger

You haven't asked for anything. You stated (if I may paraphrase -- if I misquote you, please feel free to correct me) that an "irreducibly complex system" cannot evolve through gradual improvements. I said that, no, it is possible. Whether it has actually happened is another question -- I was simply commenting on your statement. The technical term for your statement is the argument from personal incredulity. Not only is it a fallacy in general, but I have shown how this particular "problem" can be overcome.- Oh, don't do that! That would be a violation of the First Commandment!- What do you mean "on its own"?We start with a population of organisms with ABC. Most will produce offspring with ABC. Some might produce offspring with a mutation that makes A"BC -- this doesn't work as well, they will be eliminated. Some might produce offspring with the mutation AXC -- this doesn't work at all, and they will be eliminated. Some might produce offspring with the mutation that will make A'BC -- this works better and natural selection will give this individuals an advantage.At any rate, a real life example is the human blood clotting system. It was claimed that this was an "irreducibly complex system" that could not have evolved; but after comparing the human clotting system with the simpler blood clotting systems of other organisms, they were able to determine how it evolved according to the very scenario that I just described.- Nothing ever starts with nothing. Well, maybe the very first replicating systems three and half billion years ago, whose "parts" were simple enough to come together through random chance. But once some sort of compexity was achieved, then evolution would make use of things that were already present, duplicating and modifying already existing "parts".- Which has already been shown to be not irreducibly complex. So much for that example.- Typing
[qs]Try this.[/qs]
produces Typing
[qs=The goober]Try this.[/qs]
produces Typing
[quote]Try this.[/quote]
produces

quote:

---

Try this.

---

Note: no spaces inside the [...]; type [qs] and [/qs], not [ qs ] or [ /qs ]!This board does not automatically add any quoted material when you reply to a post; you have to cut and past the parts that you wish to quote.For more hip tips, click where it says "dBCodes On (help)" to the left of your edit window when you are typing a post.

---

I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger

Hi, Siggy. I'm sorry that I didn't catch this the first time around. You missed the point of the experiment described in the OP. The machine did not rebuild itself. A new and different machine was built that did the job of the old, broken machine. And this new machine was built from three parts, each of which was necessary for its function -- a new and irreducibly complex machine was built to replace the old, broken one.- What do you mean starting with nothing? A brand new machine was produced -- the new machine did not use the old broken one. It did start with nothing.Or do you mean that the proteins composing the new machine were modifications of previously existing proteins? Well, as others have said and I have said, that is the way evolution works. Evolution very rarely, if ever, makes use of brand spanking new stuff that appears ex nihilo. Evolution usually works by modifying parts or genes that already exist.

---

I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger