Replies

[[What evolution claims is that there can be simpler versions of systems that have function. Not necessarily even the same function. Just function.]]

So what you are admitting is that unique species can and do have simpler versions, but more complex species have irreducibly complex blood clotting cascades?

There was a test on mice that knocked out Fibrinogen and some other element, the mice did survive, however they were severely ill, and had no way of clotting, which meant any nick would have been fatal. When just one was knocked out, it was fatal, but when both were knocked out it wasn’t immediately fatal, and when a mouse missing one was mated with a mouse missing hte other, it did produce offspring which didn’t immediately die, but was susceptible to hemmoraging.

Bottom line- to prove that these IC elements aren’t necessary in in complex creatures, you have to show a link between complex creatures and simpler ones like hte jawless fish/lampreys, or whales and dolphins- and htese creatures are netirely different than land dwelling vertebrates- pointing to their unique clotting devices, and claiming our more complex clotting cascades, which involve over 30 different chemical reactions, and 12 very complicated and precise steps for clotting, isn’t a valid argument ot make for ‘the evolution of clotting complexity’ UNLESS you have evidence linking all creatures. Pointing to minor homological similarities has been shown to be an invalid comparison for many reasons, and mainly because similar mechanisms do totally different functions, and arise in totally unique and different manners and can’t be explained htrough common descent.

One of the criticisms against IC is that gene duplication ‘in hte past’ could have resulted in duplicate genes which could have ‘hung around’ without serving a purpose, while the original gene went on about it’s business, and in hte meantime, natural selection kept up it’s miraculous forward looking powers by creating other gene duplicaitons which also hung around until everythign from all these newly created genes without immediate function was aligned just right, and walla, a new function was evolved in a stepwise manner.

This hypothesis SEVERELY underestimates how complicated and detrimental such a process would be, especially when the duplicated genes are so similar to the original gene that they would interfere with the original fiunctions even htough they were ‘dormant’ so to speak. The process of htis type of evolution would need to somehow develop new structural changes to keep them from intereferrign with hte original gene’s primary functions, but there certainly is no evidence duplicated genes can or did develop structural changes. As well, if htese duplicated genes were just hanging around without function, what drove them to change structurally? Even if they somehow miraculously had ‘other functions’ (And remember, these ‘other functions’ would have messed up the whole works because they would have been additional functions not specific to the species, and the metainfo would not have had the correct info to deal with these new emerging functions in the first place, because htey would have been functions beyond the species specific parameters in order ot keep the newly created genes out of the way of the original genes who already had specific functions - ) they still would have had to aquire new structural changes, and somethign would have had to have been the driving force to move these duplicated genes to change structurally.

There woudl have had to have been a number of specializations not specific to that species created for no apparent reason, and htese woudl have had to all developed simultaniously in order for these newly created duplicates to have any value.

When you start introducing very similar genes into the works, you risk severe complications within the species because similar genes with different functions that are not specific to the species itnerferes with hte whole process that is already established. With a bunch of structurally similar, but different genes inpalce, without any functions, you run hte very high likelihood of structural collapse, as the system would ‘get confused’ tryign to determine which gene was the right one- Modern cancer treatment works very much like this inthat it acts like other compounds in the body, is very similar in structure, and confuses the system resulting in reactiosn that are foreign to the body. in this case however, the results can be ‘good’, but also wreak havoc on the whole system.

Claiming that genes can duplicate, and ‘create’ new functions in incremental steps, created a conglomeration of ‘parts’ that eventually result in a ‘workable model’ ignores the fact that when people do the same hting, they are using Intelligently PREDESIGNED parts with ‘species specific’ (Or ‘item specific’) purposes already intelligently established and functioning. (This is where we start getting into lateral gene transference- but here again, you HAVe to acknowledge that for somethign like this to happen, it would take a tremendous amount of foreknowledge and intelligent planning in order for the species receivign hte lateral gene transference not to suffer from mistakes- tjhis is somethign nature is simply incapable of doing)

The story about simpler genes evolving to greater and greater complexities is not very credible, and ignores the fact that htese jumps in complexity require tremendous changes that are never discussed when the proposal is put forth that because ‘simpler clotting exists in soem species, this means more complex clotting can’t be irreducibly complex, and simpyl gives the appaearance of comlexity’. So again, there is a myriad of problems that we are NOT told about when it comes to species somehow aquiring the functions of irreducible complexities from lower complexity systems in other species ‘in hte past’ at some point.