What could/would falsify Irreducible Complexity?

During Darwin "week" at Cornell it was mentioned that Naturelast year actually had reference to Behe's writing on irreducible complexity"

quote:

---

confronting the intricacy of cellular networks and their exquisitely sensitive controls, scientists often wonder how such highly complex and regulated networks evolved. A few scientists go so far as to hold that "irreducibly complex" systems constitute a "powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution"4. The argument is that for a system that is "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning", these parts could not have evolved independently4. Protein networks with allosteric regulation are examples of such complex systems.

---

Harrison, who had come to Cornell AFTER I was already a student, positioned it between evolution and molecular biology, noting that this was part of molecular biologist's attempt to gain talk about evolution. The notion of "incredulity" was clearly from Harrison's side, that when someone says they "just believe", he lets this go, which is different than Will Provine's attempts in those cases to change the student's mind.It seems hard to say that IC is only an argument from incredulity since it made it past Nature editors else the publication in NATURE simply reflects bias towards molecular biology over evolutionary biology. That is a sad condition if socially true.I think that IC is false and is due to failure to work out or reflect on infinite divisibilty past what Boltzmann did. I will post more on this later.It was an eye-opener for me to hear how Harrison presented this in his lecture "What would Darwin think?"

Oh, la la...In that case let us read and never ever evc forget it reads:

quote:

---

It is now the turn of molecular scientists to uncover details of the process that Charles Darwin summarized famously in the final sentence of On the Origin of Species: "whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved".

---

NATURE is a mag about nature. This must mean, then, that content that is presented, only to be “shot down”, is empirical or potentially so.It means that if someone disagress with the means towards taking the shot, a “pot shot”, so maybe sayed you, then by following the trajectory one might feel warrented to potentially eclipse the cycled paper and its content (now not merely a reflective physcio-theology at any all in any sense) in the end one can bring back its specter in some other redressable body.I did not present what the authors had to say (heck, I gave the link) because I was and am planning on presenting my own view in some other post (as to what really is falsifiable or seems so in IC).By simply saying that the authors and editors by association used Behe just to turn around and show how capable they were of rejecting the offense it presented (seems to me this is a philosopher’s job (take Kitcher on Abusing Science etc (although I disgree with him)) only shows, if true, as you seemed to represent by extending he quote and bolding, that molecular biology can come to evolutionary biology’s defense. Now, I have actually a different opinion but I do not have full time to represent this such, just now. I have indicated the cut I will move in the planet of.If all the authors wanted to do was to present a disposition of interacting domains they could have done it without referring negatively to IC. They could simply get along with doing what they do do UNLESS they really DID want to tell evolutionists, not creationists, off, by claiming some of the domain of Darwin’s

quote:

---

endless forms

---

It is actually surprising that Kirschener and Gerhart in “The Plausibility of Life” bring up IC/ID at all when arguing for faciliated variation. The Nature article we are discussing indicates to me that it was not because there was some huge irreducibly compex tank on board the ID transport, that needed shooting down, but rather that the parenthetical K&G complement has been extripated.
Page 265 had

quote:

---

A very small number of scientists (and almost no biologists) have shared in the skepticism

---

(of IC/ID).This seems to be what Harrison meant when he referred to it . .”Now, there are molecular biologists trying to write about evolution . as to what Darwin might have thought . but they really need to be better taught the core of Darwinism” Harrison was talking about the teaching of evolution as part of a requirement for biology majors. He as saying that mole bios talk some talk but walk like dry backed ducks etc.Darwin was concerned with finding forms without independence or separate creativity, non symbiogenically. I can not detail this page of notes, just yet, on how to relate what is “endless” in Darwin’s ”forms’ but it is, more properly -not- according to Brad, what the mole bios dug up in this Nature article. We are not full of truffles just yet.