@glipsnort that is not a well defined example. What do you think of this?
Case 1.Two independent events, each with probability p, and success requires both at same time, and there is no benefit to one alone.
Case 2. Two independent events, each with probability p, and each event is independently usefule, so it can be retained by negative selection when found.
Case 3. One event with probability p^2.
All else being equal, perhaps with some caveats to be clarified:
-
The FI is the same for all three cases (success at all events).
-
Single trial success is identical in all cases: p^2, with FI 2 log p.
-
Evolutionary wait time in Case 1 and 3 is the same: p^2, with FI 2 log p.
-
Evolutionary wait time in Case 2 is much less, approx, p * 2, with FI 2 log p. Note, the wait time is actually LESS than this, and it scales very well as we increase decomposability.
-
Case 1 is equivalent to the strictest (and known to be false) version of irreducible complexity (IC1). Even Behe acknowledges that this is not how biology works.
-
For very good reason, modern evolutionary theory works like Case 2, which had far lower wait times than Case 1 and 3.
-
FI does not correlated with wait time! The decomposability of the system breaks this relationship.
-
This result does not depend on fitness landscapes at all, just random sampling (tornado in a junkyard) plus NEGATIVE selection, not Darwinistic positive selection.
I bulleted out the points here so points can be disputed or affirmed more clearly. Everything I wrote here is directly verifiable with simulations, and experiments. We are not even including positive selection here, just negative selection.
This seems to be the heart of @gpuccio’s conceptual misunderstanding of Behe and of evolutionary science. He is working of a strawman theory of evolution, and a long ago dropped formulation of IC. Recall also he explains that his work depends on Behe’s work. He seems unaware that Behe acknowledges that IC1 does not reflect biology.