For a counterexample to this tired argument for irreducible complexity, check out :
Bridgham, Carroll, and Thornton. 2006. Evolution of hormone-receptor complexity by molecular exploitation. Science 312:97-101. Turns out all the parts don't have to be there simultaneously afterall. Cheers, Mike On Sunday 26 August 2007 09:08:38 pm Carissa Shipman wrote: > I am a biology student at Temple University and I have > conducted an NSF funded systematics project for the order > Hymenoptera at the American Museum of Natural History. My > question is why is the scientific community so convinced of > evolution? There are very few publications concerning > evolution at the molecular or biochemical level. Most > scientists are baffled at how such molecular systems such > as blood clotting actual evolved in a step by step manner. > It looks to me like many of the molecular inter workings all > needed to be there simultaneously for the end product to > function properly. The biosynthesis of AMP is just as > baffling. How could that have happened in a step by step > fashion? You can speculate, but no evolutionist has the > answer. So if you can not explain how the most nitty gritty > machines of life "molecules" learned to function in the > intricate ways that they do why are you so certain that > everything evolved? Science is looking at the details. All > science textbooks I have read have relayed very little > evidence of evolution at the molecular level. They just say > it happened. Since Darwinian evolution has published very > few papers concerning molecular evolution it should perish. > Systematics addresses genetic similarities between species, > but it does not address exactly how those genetic > differences and similarities came to be. There maybe fossils > and genes, but you need more than this. I am not convinced > of evolution, but still choose to educate myself in what it > teaches and believes. How do scientists explain how even the > slightest mutation in the human genome is highly detrimental > most of the time? If even the slightest change occurs in our > genome it is oftentimes fatal. Believing that this mechanism > lead to all the species we see today takes a great deal of > faith.For instance if even one step of the blood clotting > process were disturbed the effects would be disastrous. > Also, why does evolution leave out mathematical statistics > of how each mutation arose. TPA a component of blood > clotting has 4 domains. If we attempted to shuffle the genes > for these four domains the odds of getting all four domains > together is 30,000 to the fourth power, and that is just for > TPA! Calculating mutation rates and the odds of getting > certain genes to match up perfectly for the ultimate > function shows us that it takes more faith to believe that > we evolved from primordial slime. The earth has had > thousands of lightning bolts hit it every year and we have > not seen life spawn from molecules. If evolution happened we > would see it reoccuring time and time again from the bottom. > Why have we not seen it, because conditions have not been > perfect? I do not deny adaptation within species, but this > is far different than the assumptions of macro evolution. If > an evolutionist can challenge my arguments I would gladly > like to hear your rebuttal. Publications for molecular > evolution use many words such as "unleashed". How was it > unleashed, what were the step by step mechanisms that you > can say for certain occurred, leaving macro leapages out of > the picture? You see fossils, but you have no detailed > explanations as to how one may have turned into the other at > the molecular level. If you can not explain it at the > molecular level you have nothing to base your assumptions > on. Also all the breeds of dogs are very different from one > another and some of their skeletal structures look > unrelated. The different types of dogs that you see arrived > through intelligent interaction, not evolutionary processes. > Change occurs in nature to a limited extent. That is all. > Sincerely, Carissa Shipman -- Michael W. Sears, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Zoology & Center for Ecology Soutern Illinois University Carbondale, IL 62901 phone: 618-453-4137 cell: 618-528-0348 web: http://www.science.siu.edu/zoology/people/sears.html
