It might be better to say that X's being irreducibly complex implies that X
requires a more circuitous, and hence less likely, evolutionary pathway.
E.g., Dawkins uses the non-biological example of an arch. It's undeniably
irreducibly complex -- pull out any stone and the whole thing collapses.
And yet it's -possible- for one to "evolve" from a pile of stones if one is
lucky, if the right stones get washed away in a stream, e.g. This comes not
by building up to an arch, but by "building down" from a pile of stones.
It may be that similar things happen in biological evolution. If it's
possible to biologically "build down" (as I'd sure think it would be), then
it seems possible to get irreducibly complex systems evolutionarily.
Of course, this is an argument of -possibility-, not probability or
certainty. I'm not at all claiming this is proof that IC systems
weren't -in fact- miraculously "nanoengineered".
And I certainly agree that the origin of the cell and abiogensis are
enormous and utterly unsolved challenges for evolutionary theory. There's
speculation, but nothing at all concrete, SFAIK, anyway. (Presumably, if
evolutionary theory is correct, the first cell was substantially less
sophisticated than the most simple or primitive surviving cells today --
survival of the fittest, after all -- but it's not clear how much that
buys.)
--John
> -----Original Message-----
> From: evolution-owner@udomo2.calvin.edu
> [mailto:evolution-owner@udomo2.calvin.edu]On Behalf Of Joseph
> Mastropaolo
> Sent: Thursday, September 03, 1998 3:59 PM
> To: evolution@calvin.edu
> Subject: Behe's Irreducible Complexity Squared
>
>
> With regard to Stan Zygmunt's inquiry on Behe's irreducible complexity,
> I offered a short summary explaining the impossibility of even a part of
> a living structure "evolving" because nothing functions or has any use
> without all the parts which must be structurally and functionally
> interfaced according to a unique blueprint and all of this requires
> complex nanoengineering.
>
> That was a simplified summary because the parts mentioned are composed
> of proteins by the scores of thousands and each protein has a unique
> blueprint of usually more than 100 (50 to 1000) amino acids of which
> there are about twenty to choose from. So each portion of a part, the
> protein, is composed of scores, perhaps hundreds, of subparts or
> building blocks, the amino acids, and there are twenty different kinds
> of building blocks which must also be flawlessly selected, sequenced,
> joined and made to function according to a unique blueprint. The first
> paragraph renders a superficial description properly known as
> irreducible complexity. This slightly deeper look may be called
> irreducible complexity squared.
>
> And this isn't the whole story either. The further we go, the greater
> the complexity and the more incredible the level of nanoengineering
> required for even one cell. In my opinion, Behe's book is one of the
> most powerful refutations of "evolution" to come along in the last 100
> years.
>
> Note. I put "evolving" and "evolution" in quote marks because the idea,
> more than 2,000 years old, exists and has existed only as a fallacy.
>
> Joseph Mastropaolo
>