Doesn’t matter because parts can change functions through evolution, thus the observation that a current system fails to function at the removal of a part does not in any way indicate it couldn’t evolve.
Sorry, IC fails.
So you agree that very simple changes at the genetic level can produce massively complex, even irreducibly complex, new structures at the phenotypic level?
That is part of the argument made against the creationist IC claim, so I am glad to hear you agree.
You have yet to produce a single reason to doubt that IC systems can arise thru unguided evolutionary processes.
2 Likes
GPCRs had many functions. The evolution of olfactory-specific receptors from existing, functional, non-olfactory GPCRs millions of years ago is no problem at all.
Stop confusing yourself. You asked me how the olfactory system evolved, and I replied with a hypothesis that since GPCRs (sensors) existed first, we already had one part of the system (which was functional in other ways). The nervous system emerged later, possibly recruiting some preexisting GPCRs that could bind chemical stimuli in water (since the earliest organisms capable of olfaction were aquatic) generating the earliest olfactory systems. From that point onwards, the olfactory system continued to evolve to the point we see today.
Whether an OR needs three or two parts is just irrelevant to your question on the possible step leading to the evolution of olfactory systems.
1 Like
so i can say the same about the PC fan: it can be functional at every step, while each step has a different function. i have no evidence for that claim but its also true for your claim.
again, this depend if we consider that as new and complex system.
and they always work with other proteins. right?
see my comment to Rumraket. i can say the same about a PC fan. without any supporting evidence we can claim whatever we want.
Uh huh. So it’d be really helpful if you shared with us the objective and reliable method by which we can measure the “newness” and “complexity” of a system, the precise values above which they cannot evolve, and the evidence that supports the determination of those values.
But you won’t because you can’t. Just like Michael Behe and the rest of the ID “scientists”. So I am delighted to inform you that you are just as much a scientist on these matters as they are.
4 Likes
You can say whatever you like about a PC fan, but it’s not an organism. It’s also true, each of the components of a PC fan can have other functions, either directly or with small changes. And many different combinations of components can serve useful functions.
In the case of organisms, we know of innumerable examples of things that used to have other functions. Enzymes that used to catalyze other reactions, proteins that used to bind other molecules, promoters that used to regulate other genes, limbs that used to be for swimming became for walking, and then later for grabbing, and so on ad infinitum. Change is everywhere.
1 Like
if you have already decided what I can or cannot do, i really see no point in continuing.
we can easily test it by removing parts of the fan. if we will remove some crucial parts of the fan (such as the motor) we will not get a new function for the PC. so this is isnt realy true, empirically.
Consider it, not a decision, but a prediction.
Now, let’s see if it was accurate. That’s up to you.
3 Likes
I can think of a use of every single piece of a PC fan, for a PC, without exception. Down to the last screw or piece of plastic. For one thing, every piece can be used for ornamentation. Picking apart a PC fan into every single one of it’s constituent components, and then gluing them to the outside of a PC case will make it look cool. Many PC case modders spend inordinate amounts of time making custom PC cases simply for the sake of making them look cool or unique. But it doesn’t have to be a use for a PC in any case.
I can’t think of a single piece of electronic equipment that would look out of place on a case mod like this:
So you’re the one who is empirically wrong.
Besides, you completely ignored the more important part about changing the components so they function in other ways, and that this is true countless biological entities. This whole thing is supposed to be about biology, and whether the concept of irreducible complexity constitutes a good argument against evolution. And it does not.
Again, in real actual biology, enzymes that used to be structural proteins, regulatory proteins that used to be enzymes, parts of proteins that became parts of other proteins, limbs used for insulation or signaling that became used for flight, are all among countless examples that support the reality of changing functions. There is no end to this.
1 Like
They are called “coupled receptors” for a reason.
That GPCRs evolved first is not mere speculation on my part. It is based on good evidence. GPCRs (sensors) have been around for over a billion years. In contrast, neurons (relayers and processors) originated some 500 - 600 million years ago, likely from epithelial cell in metazoa (animals).
For the origin and evolution of GPCRs:
Taken from here:
3 Likes
I wonder why he can’t seem to grasp that a minimized or reduced system is not IC, because its function is affected in some way by the removal of other less vital parts.
For example, human olfaction is actually mediated by olfactory receptors, neurons, and the brain. However, our olfactory system goes beyond these parts to include the nose (internal and external), Bowman glands, odorant-binding proteins etcetera. If we attempt to remove these less important parts in people who possess all of them, their olfactory capacity is diminished. These shouldn’t happen to an IC system with “well-matched”, interacting parts.
However, if there are organisms whose olfactory systems consists of solely the sensors and processors of odorants or those which remain functionally unchanged after removing accessory parts, then we can call such olfactory systems IC. Regardless, the data indicates such a system still evolved.
Some evidence suggests the transmembrane protein in GPCRs go back to prokaryotic ion pumping proteins:
So the transmembrane protein can clearly function in other ways than as a receptor. I also read an article a while ago where some species of bacteria had their ATP synthetase genes knocked out, and they survived by getting their ATP from substrate-level phosphorylation. You might wonder how they maintained homeostasis without a functional ATP synthase to regulate proton concentration, and the answer turned out to be that their rhodopsins started translocating ions. Wrote about that here about 2 years ago.
4 Likes
not realy. remember that we are talking about internal organs\structures here. so of course that it cant be used for ornamentation (and you also involve designer here but lets leave that for now).
i can say the same about a PC: i can say that there is a way to made it by smell functional steps. i have no real evidence for my claim but who cares? the same is true for the flagellum or the olfactory system: there is no real calculation that shows the number of mutations required for the small steps that evolution is talking about. and without any real calculation we can claim anything we want.
if they cant work alone then the first GPCR that ever appeared whould also had another protein. and this isnt a small step.
do you consider the Cit+ as a new function?
So my prediction was accurate. You didn’t because you can’t.
1 Like
Of course, the earliest GPCRs would have interacted with G-proteins, that’s why they are called GPCRs - G-Protein Coupled Receptors.
“Isn’t a small step”, tell me why?
1 Like
because we are talking about two proteins here: the GPCR and the G protein. this isnt a small step.
Obviously we are talking GPCRs and G-proteins, why are you stating the obvious?
Stop ignoring my question, why is the evolution of binding sites between GPCRs and G-proteins not possible in small steps?
1 Like
because if we assume that two proteins evolved in the same time- this seems to be a very big step in sequence space.
You just keep repeating this is not possible in small steps without producing any reason why. Why must we assume both evolved at the same time? Why can’t we also assume one came before the other, and binding sites evolved later on, allowing them to interact? More importantly, why is the evolution of binding sites between both proteins not possible in small steps whether or not they evolved at the same time?
I ask these questions to get you to think about the things you say, because sometimes you throw them out without thinking them through.
4 Likes
because there is no function for each of them separately.
if they evolved at the same time then its not something that we can consider as “small step”. if for instance the chance for a single new binding site is say one in a billion, then the chance to get two binding sites at the same time is one in 10^18 (billion*billion).