Irreducible complexity at the microscopic level

Most supporters of evolution here would presumably agree that it's easy to refute any argument of "irreducible complexity" by explaining the evolution of the mechanism in question, or by explaining how this argument is irrelevant because if we don't know how to explain it now, that does not mean it is essentially unexplainable.Being a non-scientist, I would like to know how we refute this argument when it comes down to a molecular level. I agree that if you are not a biologist, you might look at a cell and be amazed at all the activities that occur inside of it -- it's hard to imagine how all of it could have evolved, bit by bit. You might accept that genes program the cells. But how do genes do that exactly? How do molecules become grouped in such a way that complex sets of instructions can become encoded?I have been having a particular debate based on the evolution of bilateral symmetry. Talk Origins explains that it is directed by signaling molecules. The question is now: He is a former electrician so it looks like he is attempting to approach it from that angle.Is this correct? Do signaling molecules, and genes, work in complex synergy like a computer? If so, how would the steps in the programs have developed through evolution? Has he hit on a system which is indeed "irreducibly complex"?Can anyone help me to understand?Biological Evolution I think.

Can you give some examples? When I've read about some organisms losing complexity through evolution, the only example I found was parasites. Are there organs or systems in our own bodies, or those of other relatively complex animals, which have evolved by something being removed?

The thing is Taz, you do need certain components for your computer to work; remove one of those, and the system will not function. A processor. A motherboard. A monitor, a keyboard (the system might work but you can't use it without those). I think an IDer might reply to you that any equivalent vital components in a biological system would be equally devastating to the functioning of the organism if one or more was removed.

Lesson learned: from now on, if I pull information off Talk Origins or any other source, I will make sure I understand it thoroughly myself so that I can discuss and refute. This time I mentioned something I don't really understand (signaling molecules), can't seem to find any information about that isn't highly technical, and have been caught out. I think he keeps asking me about this because he wants to show me up for a fool who parrots things without understanding them -- and admittedly in this case, I tripped up.Fom what I could gather, signaling molecules are part of genes. Scientists have found a couple of genes that seem to be responsible for left-right body part anomalies in humans and rats, when those genes are mutated. They are located on a small part of the X-chromosome. But what we are hung up on are these signaling molecules.Can you help me understand this a bit better Crash? If these molecules, and genes themselves, do not function like a computer, then how do they function? Is the IDer's analogy here completely wrong; and if so, how? Would there be a more accurate analogy to use?

Sorry Ned, could you clarify this?

Yes, when I was getting to the bottom of the text I was thinking "hmmmm." I can see why a creo would jump on this. In fact I would expect them to be quote mining it endlessly.I take it that the author was not quite right there, and that mutations tend not to be as commonly harmful as he suggests. Otherwise we would not see organisms evolving as they have done.

I can understand this Crashfrog, thanks. So how would signaling molecules work to produce bilateral symmetry? What are they "stopping"?

Thanks for adding your expertise here Wounded King. I've enjoyed reading your posts elsewhere. Maybe if I read this one ten times more, I'll be making sense out of it LOL.What would be your opinion about how signaling molecules evolved? If I'm thinking like an IDer, I might (with a total lack of scientific knowledge) look at what you've written here and be amazed and incredulous at the complexity. What an intricate system. It does almost sound like there's a language here, with messengers carrying it.

People here have been helpful in explaining how IC is nonsense. Here is an excellent refutation of Behe's analogy of the mousetrap. It simply involves an unwillingness to accept that we do understand how things work, and anyone can find this out with a little education.Thanks to you and others here for clarifying the signaling molecules. This obviously goes beyond my high school chemistry.At the bottom of it all, the IDer thinks the whole of science is a conspiracy (a Communist one). He has to, because it's the only way he can refute anything scientific. He tries to argue that my finding information from websites, books and scientists is akin to his pulling information off of Hovind's site. The only problem there is that I am educating myself while he is deluding himself.

Yes, he's asked about the eye. I've given him info on that; as you say, living organisms display the full spectrum from the very simple to the complex.I think I'm going to take the tactic of showing what BS the IC argument is. If he gets me to keep talking about signaling molecules, I can't talk like WK with any semblance of credibility. I'll end up like the astronomer who was trounced in that debate you mentioned.

Thanks crashfrog and RAZD. I'll look up these links.Thinking about what this creo has said to me, his other favourite tactic parallel to this one is the argument from incredulity. He insists that many things are too complicated to have evolved; they must have been created. That's what's driven me to try to explain so many things to him. But in the end it's going to be a waste of time because he's not really interested in the answers, or he'd look them up himself.I'm going to make some notes on the things people have told me here. The knowledge shared here is fantastic, and thanks to all for your help.