In any event, since no one claims watches arose from non-watches thru the process of evolution, it is pointless to explain why watches could not have evolved.
The theory of evolution explains how the diverse forms of life that have inhabited the earth have arisen. It is not a theory that purports to explain how every single entity that consists of multiple parts in a complex, functional arrangement came to be. Evolutionists readily agree that intelligent design accounts for some such things. So your argument, not to mention that of Behe, Buggs and others of their ilk, is pointless.
Yes. If you remove parts from some things, this often breaks them and they don’t work anymore. This applies to a watch if you remove its mainspring, or a human being if you remove his head. This is a childishly simple concept that humans have already alway known about. Behe somehow thinks he made some monumental discovery when he thought up IC. He didn’t. He was re-stating something that was already painfully obvious.
It might well be true that watches could not have “evolved stepwise.” If so, then that would mean watches did not “evolve stepwise.” Big deal. Who ever said they did?
Say proteins A, B, C, and D have functions a, b, c, and d respectively. Complexes AB and CD have functions e and f, respectively. Complex ABCD has function g. Removing any protein from ABCD removes function g, making it irreducibly complex for function g. It can still evolve by a stepwise process.
I would suggest the best way you could answer that question would be to read a good book intended for laypeople like you and I that outlines the theory of evolution and the evidence supporting it. e.g. Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne.
For the sake of the present discussion, suffice it to say that if watches did not or could not evolve, it does not also mean that the flagellum did not, or could not have, evolved That is a matter of simple logic and no particular scientific knowledge is needed.
This is the position that molecular macro evolution is left with. A speculation (could have evolved) and an extreme burden shift (doesn’t mean it could not have evolved).
It is not a burden shift to ask an ID proponent to support a specific claim he has made. e.g. that the bacterial flagellum could not have evolved.
As to why one would accept that evolution happens, I will just reiterate my advice to learn a bit about the theory and the evidence supporting it. There are many good resources out there to help you with that.
Did he make the claim the it could not evolve? If so that is simply a rhetorical mistake on his part.
As to why one would accept that evolution happens, I will just reiterate my advice to learn a bit about the theory and the evidence supporting it. There are many good resources out there to help you with that.
The supporting evidence is homologous proteins and phylogenetic patterns both can be explained by design. The contradictory evidence is de novo sequences (DNA plus Proteins) over time with no viable mechanistic explanation for their origin. This is why the molecular macro evolutionary claim is so difficult to support.
There is no viable model for how de novo genes are created. Until this is resolved the support for this claim is vacuous. You can claim “supporting evidence” for almost any speculation.
I agree, but there’s excellent models for how de novo genes evolve.
5 Models and mechanisms of de novo gene birth
Several theoretical models and possible mechanisms of de novo gene birth have been described. The models are generally not mutually exclusive, and it is possible to imagine a number of plausible ways in which a de novo gene might emerge.
Well of course there’s a model for how they evolve. More importantly, there are countless examples of how they evolve based on comparing genomes in a phylogeny. Of course if you reject phylogeny none of that counts, but then you have to justify your rejection of phylogeny.
I agree this is evidence to support the speculation.
How do you account for the substantial genetic changes from single celled eukaryotic cells to vertebrates? The answers are alway additional speculations (labeled as models) as @Rumraket used to support his assertions. Darwin’s claim of universal common descent is that these changes came from reproduction alone. A completed model would show the path generated by reproduction.
There is nothing close to this even for the generation of a flagellum in bacteria which is arguably a micro evolutionary change.
Not without some god helping out. Which amounts to the same thing.
See? This is why I recommend you read some book or website that explains evolution at a very simple level. Because what you wrote there is just plain wrong.
