|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |