This may be why I am two years into my BA degree in molecular biology and
genetics. However, I am also 7 years into my 'sabbatical' being a mom and a
housewife. Someday, when priorities permit.....
snipping interesting things
>
>If you don't mind a final comment, I believe the reason is because IC is
>based on a bad analogy. IC assumes that proteins are like mousetraps in
>that they are artifacts that must be specifically designed and built by
>intelligence. I have no doubt that a mousetrap is IC, but a mousetrap
could
>not evolve on its own (no dynamic information system). If in fact proteins
>are not artifacts, but are simply smaller versions of whole organisms, then
>they too could have evolved piecemeal over time, even though the current
>result "appears" to be IC.
>
It may, indeed be a bad analogy, however there are still some questions
which the attachment of the label IC requires be asked.
What does the cell do with a new functional protein? Unless it is contained
within an appropriate system, it is quite possible that the function of this
protein could kill the cell. Therefore, how does such a system develop? It
would seem to me, that not only do whole proteins need to appear, but also a
cascade of functions to keep things in balance. I can't think of any
specific examples, but I'm sure you and many others on this list could.
Also, has the list discussed the specific examples of IC in Behe's book? If
so, could someone kindly point me to the approximate place in the archives?
Thanks a lot,
Ami Chopine