Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 1

Let me get this straight. You start with an IC system ("IC by definition"). Then you add parts to it, which could eventually be lost again.

Does anyone see a problem with this scenario (if you want to maintain that RM/NS does it all)?


Part of the confusion is because we are looking backwards in time at the history of an organism. Behe himself does this in his definition of IC, "removal of any one of the parts [from a working system]".

Let me rephrase in a better time-order. Behe actually means by IC is there isn't a possible, precursor system that new parts could be added to to produce the current system. He would say there is no evolutionary pathway to the current system, because any simpler system isn't functional.

As I said, Evolution isn't forced to build complex systems from simpler systems. A complex system could evolve from an even more complex system. The even more complex system could be a reducible system. There could be an evolutionary pathway though the more complex system.


You start with an IC system . . .

The I in IC stands for "irreducibly". That doesn't mean 'no evolutionary pathways'. It is possible for an IC structure to formed by evolution.


Print the post  

Announcements

What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.