In a message dated 9/16/2000 7:34:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time, cliff@cab.com
writes:
<< FMAJ1019@aol.com wrote:
>ccogan@telepath.com writes:
><< At 12:59 AM 09/16/2000, you wrote:
>>http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/evolve_irreducible.html
>>
>>Scenario #1: reduction of function
>>Scenario #2: loss of scaffolding
>>Scenario #3: duplication
>I would add:
>Scenario #4: "sideways" evolution from some other equally complex, but not
>*irreducibly* complex, structure.
#3, duplication, is all you need to generate masses of parts. Arrays of parts
evolve specialized morphology via loss and distortion of parts through RM&NS.
Unneeded parts--"scaffolding"--can disappear. What am I missing? Don't tell
me IC advocates are unaware that this is part of evolutionary theory.
>>
If indeed as the evidence suggests, there are natural pathways to IC systems
then Behe's ID argument has been disproven. Of course this does not mean
that therefore none of the IC systems were designed or that all IC systems
arose naturally. But now we can go back to doing the science to support one's
views. Of course ID might need a new paradigm.
I found another interesting paper discussing pathways.
http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/dave/JTB.html
a) Serial direct Darwinian evolution.
b) Parallel direct Darwinian evolution.
c) Elimination of functional redundancy.
d) Adoption from a different function.
A classification of possible routes of Darwinian evolution. Richard H.
Thornhill1 and David W. Ussery. Published in The Journal of Theoretical
Biology, 203: 111-116, 2000.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 16 2000 - 23:33:51 EDT