Irreducible Complexity.

[leo-rcc]

Hi Catherine,

What is the definition of Irreducible complexity you are defending?

IC does not forbid subsets of components of molecular machines being utilised in other molecular machines. IC simply asserts that there are multiple interacting components, the individual parts of which have no independent function.'

bolding mine.

Which Adrian already pointed out doesn't count for the flagellar motor because a part does have an independent function. That that function is not the same is not an issue.

Adrian, you are surely wrong on two counts: 1)To say it has nothing to do with IC and 2)to say it doesn't stop functioning. It will no longer function as a mouse trap which is the purpose of the combined parts. This is very clear to me and is a clear example of irreducible complexity. So I don't understand your first point??

The point is that a mousetrap HAS a function. To catch mice. It is designed and optimized specifically for that function. The parts in living organisms as demonstrated throughout nature will serve a specific purpuse through gradual adaptation.

Leo, I'll start off with a quote if I may:

''Behe never suggests that subsystems cannot play some other role in the cell—in fact he suggests the opposite. Rather, Behe simply argues that evolution requires that the total system must be built up in a slight, step-by-step fashion, where each step is functional.

That is something I disagree with, if the change is not functional but not detrimental either, there is just a much chance of that change staying in the gene pool and being propagated. So there is no actual need for it to be functional, but it would help speed things along. But since there is no end goal or specific target, that is not a necessity.

Miller has mischaracterized irreducible complexity, and his test is a straw-test for refuting irreducible complexity. The test for irreducible complexity does not ask “can one small part of the macrosystem be used
to do something else?” as Miller claims, but rather asks “can the system as a whole be built in a step-by-step fashion which does not require any ‘non-slight’ modifications to gain the final target function?”

And there is the main problem with I.D. It claims there IS a target, a goal, we disagree on that point. I say there is no goal, no target, just if something works in favour of that organism it will filter through, and if not beneficial but not detrimental either it can stay or evolve out again, and if it is detrimental to the organism it will either evolve away or the organism will go extinct.

I said a similar thing in my last post to you and asked if you agreed and you said no. I am struggling to see why you say no.

And I still do say no.

Adrian seems to be taking issue with this as well, so I think before we proceed to the 'gradual step by step' evolution of the system, and why I maintain this is 'impossible' if something is truly irreducibly complex , we need to clear up this point, if that is ok.

Again, that would mean something is truly Irreducible Complex, but so far the example you have given doesn't show that it is.

Also for reference: http://users.frii.com/katana/Fli.htm

As a side-note, a number of sources that discuss flagellar mechanics are written by people who claim it as proof that bacteria were divinely created, rather than evolving, because of a principle called ‘irreducible complexity’, which claims that the flagellar structure is too complicated to have evolved, as it requires correct functioning of a large number of proteins, specifically including FliG, FliM, and FliN. The argument seems to run as follows: unnecessary genes randomly mutate, and it is unlikely in the extreme that all 40 (the number typically cited) of the proteins necessary for flagellar function could have somehow suddenly appeared at the same time and in the correct manner to form a macrostructure like the flagellum. No mention is made that Helicobacter pylori gets by with 33 proteins. One implication of this paper is that it is not necessary for FliM and FliN to be strictly conserved, but FliG must be basically invariant, reducing the number of strictly necessary proteins by another two.