Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall's experiments

Wow, you're either missing the point entirely or moving the goal posts out of the stadium, down the street, and into another city.Argument: Organisms have IC functions. IC can't evolve because only part of an IC system is useless and wouldn't be selected for.Counter-argument: We have shown an IC system, removed one part to make it not work, and shown a new, albeit similar, one evolve thus proving that an IC system can evolve.Traderdrew's rebuttal: This just shows IC even more, adaptation itself is IC, and thus evolution is IC, therefore evolution disproves evolution.

All you need is a mutation to occur at a spor that doesn't do any harm to the organism. Then that mutation will be passed down in that family line. At some point, perhpas hundreds of years later, you have another mutation that builds on the previous one. It may help, it may do nothing, but as long as it doesn't hurt the survival of an organism, again, it gets preserved. How would it be difficult for mutations to build up? Especially if the area they're building up in is an unused copy of another gene, and if one of those mutations reactivates the copy, and the new process is better than the original, how would that not make a novel feature?Tell me one process seen in nature that would hinder this from happening. Incredulity at the amount of time needed is not a logical argument because time we have in plenty.

I know. I was responding to traderdrew and explaining why his little rant on mutations was wrong.

If you don't mind, may I ask where you learned biology. The process I told you is pretty much exactly what I was taught in Biology class in high school. Preservation doesn't require as much energy as "pruning" would. If something changes in an unused piece of DNA, why would our cells waste energy trying to ferret out those minor changes and remove them? Even if they did, what makes you think they'd be perfect in their execution.As it turns out, not only can a lot of things go wrong, but a lot of things do go wrong. That's why we have miscarriages, cancer, genetic diseases, and general cell death.Let's see you read through billions of lines of letters and find the one change that occured, like those pictures in kids' magazines where you have to circle the things that change from one to the other. If you can't reliably do it every time, what makes you think an automated process could do better?

So you don't think that an error/mutation that occurs in a strand of DNA will get weeded out every time? So it can be passed on? So it can then be built upon by other errors/mutations? So evolution can occur? Awesome, thanks for agreeing with me. More sophisticated? Hardly. More complex? Definitely. More complexity means more areas and things that can go wrong.How can an error that affects multicellular life affect unicellular life? Surely a car is more sophisticated than a block of wood. Has a block of wood ever developed bad brakes? I guess bad brakes don't happen.

I felt no such cornering. I'm just taken aback that you have such a poor understanding of biology. This was first taught to me in my first biology class, it was built upon in every subsequent biology class, and is essentially a very basic concept in biology. The fact that you do not know this implies you are either completely uneducated in Biology, or have forgotten the very basic tenets upon which all other biological exploration is based.I remember much of what I learned in most classes when what I learned was built upon many times and referenced ad nauseum in every subsequent class in the subject. Much like I remember what a noun or a verb is, despite learning that in first grade, or perhaps even earlier.