Bilbo Defends' Behe's Irreducible Complexity

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Bilbo

Please provide an example.

Do you have difficulty reading the link? Please let me know. It would be tragic if I am the only one able to see it. No wonder you would be confused…

@swamidass

I’ll also point to this beautiful example of an IC1 system evolving.

@swamidass

An amoeba and a bacteria live fine apart. Then the bacteria infects the amoebae. Then the two lose the ability to live apart. Take away the bacteria, the amoeba dies. Take away the amoeba, the bacteria dies. This is, by definition, an IC1 system. It is very easy to evolve. The basic pattern for increasing complexity is.

1. Start with something.
2. Add something new.
3. Make the new thing necessary.

“Add something, make it necessary.”

The Mullerian Two-Step, or Why Behe's "Irreducible Complexity" is silly

This easily builds up IC1 complexity by obvious mechanisms that most ID proponents would pejoratively call destructive evolution as if that ends the argument. Yet…

a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.

So that means that destructive evolution (what ever that is) can, apparently, evolve ever increasing amounts of IC1 complexity.

Please confirm that you are able to see this on the original thread @bilbo. If not, it would explain a great deal of the confusion here. If you can read it, why make me quote it here? I’m confused. Couldn’t you have just quoted it here yourself?