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:
How did this complex and sophisticated system of signaling molecules come to establish an encoding mechanism, a decoding mechanism, a suitable medium, and a protocol (a language of communication understood by both the encoder and the decoder)?
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.
™ Version 4.2