A system which was thought to be irreducibly complex had an element removed, and it did not cease functioning but rather mutated into a working arrangement. Thus, it was proven not to be irreducibly complex.
I might be a bit confused but I think you have this wrong:
There are two issues that are on topic for this thread. Are the systems being examined IC or not and did they evolve into place or not.
It doesn't really matter if the system which was broken was IC or not but it happens that it was. That is why the removal of part broke it. I think you are wrong that the system did not cease functioning. It was IC and it broke.
The system that evolved to replace the function of the broken original system was not the same one. The original one did not "mutate into a working arrangement". Something different evolved. The new system which evolved is IC.
The fact that an IC system was shown to evolve removes the use of IC as an argument that they can not evolve by Darwinian evolution. It only takes one counter example. It is done, finished, caput and a very dead parrot.
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.
A system which meets Darwin's criterion is one which exhibits irreducible complexity. By irreducible complexity I mean a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced gradually by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, since any precursor to an irreducibly complex system is by definition nonfunctional. Since natural selection requires a function to select, an irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would have to arise as an integrated unit for natural selection to have anything to act on. It is almost universally conceded that such a sudden event would be irreconcilable with the gradualism Darwin envisioned. At this point, however, 'irreducibly complex' is just a term, whose power resides mostly in its definition. We must now ask if any real thing is in fact irreducibly complex, and, if so, then are any irreducibly complex things also biological systems.
Do you agree that he is saying that an IC system can't evolve?
The rest of your post doesn't seem to make any sense. Perhaps you can reword it? In other words, No, I do not understand you.
The 2nd casts a shadow of a doubt so it was a coincidence. The 3rd time says, “What is going on here?” By the 5th time I would say that the mutations were not random.
This will seem to be too simple but it seems you're misunderstandings are on a very simple level.
If I roll a pair of dice and they come up 11, roll again and they come up 3, again and they come up 6 are they random?
If I roll 11, 3 and 11 are they random?
You are forgetting that there are billions of "rolls" involved in the case of the bacteria. Many do not produce a "win". The fact that one "number" comes up a 2nd or 3rd or 5th time doesn't show they are not random.
Why not attempt to form a more convincing argument for Darwinism by taking the IPTG out of the experiment?
Why not show that mice can not evolve by taking oxygen out of the experiment? This is as silly as your first argument.
Barry Halls statements don't say what you think they say but that is for another thread. "Limited evolutionary potential" has nothing to do with IC evolving or not. Please try to maintain some focus and stop thrashing about.
This experiment does not disprove microevolution. However, this experiment does not falsify intelligent design.
The topic is IC and if it can evolve or not. This experiment shows that it can. That is all that is involved.
If you think that intelligent design is falsified if the idea that IC can't evolve is wrong then ID is, indeed, falsified. I don't know how you make that connection though. It is also a topic for another thread.
No but I don't think it would disprove that the dice were rigged.
What does that mean? "No" the dice are not random if 2 11's come up in 3 rolls? Or what do you mean?
And why the off the wall statement about rigging? Of course it would not disprove (or prove) they were rigged. Can you elaborate please?
This is true. But are you insinuating that the mutations were random? If so, why?
Mutations have been shown to be random to a great extent. If you want to dive into it then another thread would be appropriate.
Also what kind of "non-randomness" would you be looking for? That could be an interesting thread too. Note that random or not doesn't make any difference to the evolution of an IC system. If you think it does please explain why. An IC system can evolve. Why haven't your grappled with that yet?
[qs]I don't think so.[/i]
Just why don't you think so? If we remove something the mice need to be able to survive at all they are not going to evolve are they? Same with the crippled bacteria. How is this different exactly?
You are entitled to your point of view and so we agree to disagree on some things. I wonder if you can elaborate on your belief. I already made that connection and explained it in the form of one large post today that I'm sure you read.
It would be appropriate to point the the post since I don't see one that is relevant.
Since I don't think that ID is necessarily falsified if IC can evolve and you say we disagree I can only conclude that you are saying that you believe that if IC can evolve then ID is falsified. If that is not true, please clarify.