Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Hmm. If you follow from your starting premise, maybe. The problem of 
> course that (3) is in error anyway. You can *get* irreducible systems, 
> without either needing them to be designed *or* previously existing. 
> Basically, lets say that:
> 
> GTG did something specific and unique, and so did GTT, but you can have 
> mutations, like GTGG, or GTTT, GTGT, or even GTTG, which work like their 
> original versions. So, lets say 's' counts as a stop. What you do is 
> start with GTTs, make a copy GTTsGTTs, then you mutate it a few 
> different ways:
> GTTsGTGs
> GTTsGTTGs
> GGTsGTTs
> 
> The last one of those copies is defective, but you still have a working 
> copy anyway, and it allows for later getting: GTGTsGTTs But, the GTGs 
> version would be "irreducible", once other related genes become 
> dependent on that form, causing the GTGTs and GTGGs, etc. versions to 
> "break" the system.
> 
> The trick here is, if you get several of these tweaks, which are 
> inter-reliant, the *intermediary* versions may work with a larger number 
> of variations and errors than the final version. At some point though, 
> you are likely to run into dependency issues, where your GTGs, or 
> variation **must** have that combination it in, to work with the other 
> gene some place else, which underwent a similar change, and in the 
> process produced new behaviors/functions.
> 
> Of thousands of genes involving body plan, segmentation, symmetry, limb 
> formation, etc., all of them are derived from a relatives *small* number 
> of codes. In some cases the codes are nearly identical for the gene 
> that, say, makes fingers grow, but the transcription and developmental 
> code is different, producing a new pattern of growth. Other cases "both" 
> the transcription/development code *and* the control genes differ, but 
> they are still identifiably variations on existing genes, that do 
> similar things. Any irreducibility seems to come from a duplicate copy 
> changing, and linking up with other changes, to produce a unique result, 
> then undergoing subtractions, which fail to disable the new effect, but 
> which render reversal to an earlier form impossible.

So in essence you are arguing that any irreducible complexity was 
preceded by reducible complexity.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message