Typical ID response to rebuttals?

Ben, It matters not a jot, an IC system evolved (the expression regulation & associated enzyme, specifically).But for the record, the bacteria that evolved a new enzyme, expression regulator, & permease, would quite obviously outcompete it's lacking contemporaries in the substrate that the enzyme works on. How could it not result in differential reproductive success when it has so much more food to eat than it's petri dish competitors?Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Hi RAZD, We need to be careful in our claims here, a multipart system isn't necessarily an IC system. For example, in the Hall '82 experiment, the evolution of a permease & enzyme is a multipart system but not necessarily an IC one. If you remove the permease, the enzyme continues to function as before.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Ben, Er, yes. So what? It shows IC can evolve, job done.Why can't other IC systems evolve under different circumstances? Should it have been in order for you to accept the evolution of IC? Why would it be any different if it were in short supply? And that disqualifies this example of the evolution of IC how, exactly? A non-sequitur. What genes existed & didn't is irrelevant, except to note that an IC exists that previously didn't. Again, & this disqualifies this example of the evolution of IC how, exactly?All in all a fairly weak & disingenuous list of objections. Oh, I see, you won't rest until every known example of IC has been shown to evolve in a lab?IC can evolve, there is no particular reason to think that it can't evolve elsewhere. Ye Olde Creationists mantra that IC cannot evolve is demonstrably false. Job done.MArk

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Ben, Yes it is. If you remove the enzyme the permease & regulator is functionless. BUT, if you remove the permease the enzyme & regulator still work. The former is IC, the latter isn't. It just depends what you remove from the system. The point I was making to RAZD was that just because any given system is complex (uses more than one part), it isn't necessarily irreducibly complex.The fact remains that IC has evolved in Hall's experiment.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Dbl postThis message has been edited by mark24, 09-28-2005 01:07 PM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Ben,Given that Behe actually quotes the flagellum (as Paul points out) as an IC structure, that can have parts removed without destroying function, I would say he's actually as loose as I'm being with his definition.If the flagellum is an IC structure, then so is Hall's permease, enzyme, & regulator.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Ben, IC has evolved.What are these broader cases where the knowledge we have presents a block to the evolution of IC? If there isn't one, then there is no reason to claim that IC systems can't evolve elsewhere. I am not extrapolating from a single example, even if we didn't have an example of IC evolving there is still no good reason to claim that IC cannot evolve. Biological IC can potentially arise via known mechanisms, if you have information to the contrary then you need to present it. This IS the way it works, if creationists insist on placing themselves in a position where they have to prove a negative, then that's their look out.This is how science works, we observe IC, we can construct theoretical arguments as to how it arises, we can then test this by observation. This has been done. Given the knowledge we have, by far the most evidentially supported explanation of IC is evolution, with both direct observation of it happening & the known mechanisms that allow it to arise. I would like to stress, even without studies like Hall 1982, evolution is still by far the best explanation. It invokes no unknowns & simply invokes known mechanisms.If you wish to scupper this notion, then you need evidence of your own theory that better explains the observations.It seems to me that well understood & mundane mutation & natural selection that we know can be responsible for IC, is a far better explanation for IC than merely dreaming up a deity that we have no evidence for whatsoever as a crutch for our incredulity. Wouldn't you agree?What do you think the evidence suggests is the best explanation of IC?Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't