>The problem with Irreducible Complexity is that it assume that the only >function of all the parts of the complex object is for what the complex >object is used for. > >It seems to ignore that the individual parts, while offering no benefit >in their current purpose, could have been used for something else.
Eh...right...that's like saying you dropped a laptop and the CPU suddenly became a GPU for no reason. Even if the individual parts of a complex mechanism evolved elsewhere in the cell they'd still have to join together in a single generation or natural selection would weed the useless changes out. If you're talking about a simple mechanism composing of just a few parts that might be acceptable. The normal example, however, is the bacterial flagellum (and yes I realize I probably just butchered the spelling) which has over 40 individual parts. Even if you give it a half dozen generations that gets to be far fetched. Frankly when presented with irreducible complexity vs co-option (that's the term that argument was given when I first heard it) I've always thought that co-option sounded like someone grasping at straws for an explaination that didn't involve some outside force. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:315889 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
