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.
There are humans walking around with hundreds of copies of some genes, while other humans have only one or a few copies.
Of course the changes are discussed. And if you read journals instead of creationist websites you would be familiar with the discussion. There are hundreds of published books on the evolution of blood clotting. a large stack, along with hundreds of journal articles were introduced as evidence at the Dover trial.