Originally posted by forkedknight
The entire basis for the argument that bacterial flagella could not have evolved is due the the argument that it is "irreducibly complex", and therefore could not have evolved from some other form or function in an organism.
With the information that the flagellum contains all of the components of a Type III secretory system, we can see that the flag omplex. Argument refuted.
b) Prove that intelligent design occured. No evidence given...
Actually 'irreducible complexity' can occur, And indeed might be expected to occur,
in evolution.
And thus even if you find an 'irreducibly complex' system you have not in fact just
proved that that system couldn't have evolved.
For example...
Suppose you have a simple single cell organism that requires from it's environment
substance A and substance B.
On the surface of this single cell organism there is a receptor substance A and a
receptor for substance B.
Substance A is very common but B is very rare, and so this organism is restricted in
it's growth and spread by the availability of substance B.
Then one of the organisms develops the ability to convert substance A into substance
B.
As substance A is very common the organism can now make all the substance B it
needs from substance A and thus is no longer restricted to locations where there
are high enough concentrations of substance B.
This is a huge evolutionary advantage and cells with this mutation rapidly out-compete
cells without it.
As these new cells colonise areas with little of no substance B the substance B receptor
becomes redundant.
As this structure is no-longer needed and has an energy/complexity cost to produce there
is evolutionary pressure against it. Mutations in DNA that effect it don't come with an instant
penalty as it's a useless appendage, and so either gets recycled to make some new feature...
Or it just disappears entirely.
We now have a creature that requires substance A and substance B to survive.
But only has a receptor for substance A, and must produce substance B from substance A
to survive.
At this point someone from the ID crowd shouts 'irreducible complexity' as the cell can't
survive unless it has both a fully functioning substance A receptor AND a fully functioning
substance A to substance B converter. And they say that it is highly implausible that both
evolved at exactly the same time and thus the creature couldn't have evolved.
Irreducible complexity is not a problem for evolution. It's predicted by it.
EDIT: And RJHinds threads still don't belong in science, and should be booted.
EDIT2: Oh and I meant to say... While those are my own words, that is not my own example of
irreducible complexity arising naturally via evolution. I came across that example somewhere on
the web around a year ago and cannot for the life of me remember where.
Otherwise I would cite the source.