but this is true for now. so the claim that it could happen in the past is just an assumption, while all the empirical evidence show it cant evolve.
No, it isn’t. You just said that we can’t know if every step in a synthesis pathway was never functional.
true. but we need to go by the evidence we have. and since according to the evidence we have there are no such small steps, why should we ignore these evidence?
What empirical evidence is that?
What evidence is that?
We don’t have evidence that these steps were never functional on their own. Therefore, you can’t make that claim.
1 Like
the fact that we dont know how complex IC systems can evolve stepwise.
we also have no evidence that a 100-meters-tall t-rex existed in the past. so what is the difference?
But that is neither evidence nor a fact. We know how IC systems can evolve stepwise. By gradually making things with different functions, that used to be able to function alone, depend on each other to continue functioning.
You were asked for evidence and now you just make something up(which is demonstrably false) instead of providing a reference.
You really are a total waste of time to talk to because when you run out answered-a-million-times questions to ask, instead of just admitting that your questions have been answered you switch to mindlessly declaring and assertion things already known to be false.
This is ridiculous. Just admit that you are wrong. All your terrible questions, and points, and threads have been answered a million times with exceedingly detailed answers, references, and refutations.
Why are you unable to just admit that you have been wrong? Find something else to do with your life, you’re wasting everyone’s time including your own.
but the evidence show otherwise. for instance: if we will remove some parts of the clotting system (or any other complex IC) it will stop functioning. thus the evidence we have support IC and not the opposite.
You are making a claim equivalent to a 100 meter tall T rex with no evidence to back it.
That’s objectively false, as some organisms are missing parts and they clot just fine.
That would be your fabrication derived from wishful thinking, not evidence.
No the evidence shows that IC systems can evolve how I described.
By gradually making things with different functions, that used to be able to function alone, depend on each other to continue functioning.
Yes the system is irreducibly complex. It has parts which, if you remove them, it stops working. So it is irreducibly complex. But it could still have evolved as I just explained.
Does it compute or do we need to call someone to fix a short circuit somewhere?
exactly. as we have no evidence that there are small steps to evolve the Heme synthesis or the blood clotting.
true. but they will not clot with a single protein. this is why i said “some parts”.
can you give an example of such a complex IC that can evolve stepwise?