I agree, BMCDA.
More likely it was something else which through a minor change was capable of catching mice.
Exactly. He dismisses this option (co-option!) on the basis of incredulity.
An other point is gene duplication. Of course he doesn't deny that gene duplication occurrs ... his concern is that a duplicated gene can mutate in such a way that it produces a protein that is harmful to the organism.
This is really a red herring. Organisms generally die from mutations via loss of function.
The ID business is a strange phenomenon to me. If it's possible to tell if or how things are designed, there should be no way to say, look, here, the flagella is obviously designed because that seems so complex, (irriducibly so), but that snowflake over there is not obviously designed because that follows laws of physics that are already known. One can't be evidence of design while the other isn't.
Really? That's interesting. It certainly helps the case for gene duplication.An other point is gene duplication. Of course he doesn't deny that gene duplication occurrs ... his concern is that a duplicated gene can mutate in such a way that it produces a protein that is harmful to the organism.
This is really a red herring. Organisms generally die from mutations via loss of function.
The answer is that the explanation you are using is incorrect. Evidence of design relies on specified complexity which requires complexity, specification and information. A snowflake does not have any information, but DNA does. In addition to which, there is no naturalistic reason (chemical, etc.) why a string of DNA bases should be as it is:
Stephen Meyer makes this point beautifully for DNA.[19] Suppose some natural cause is able to account for the sequence specificity of DNA (i.e., the specified complexity in DNA). The four nucleotide bases are attached to a sugar-phosphate backbone and thus cannot influence each other via bonding affinities. In other words, there is complete freedom in the sequencing possibilities of the nucleotide bases. In fact, as Michael Polanyi observed in the 1960s, this must be the case if DNA is going to be optimally useful as an information bearing molecule.[20] Indeed, any limitation on sequencing possibilities of the nucleotide bases would hamper its information carrying capacity. But that means that any natural cause that brings about the specified complexity in DNA must admit at least as much freedom as is in the DNA sequencing possibilities (if not, DNA sequencing possibilities would be constrained by physico-chemical laws, which we know they are not). Consequently, any specified complexity in DNA tracks back via natural causes to specified complexity in the antecedent circumstances responsible for the sequencing of DNA.
From: Another Way to Detect Design