>>Its certainly the case for many systems, you can argue for mutation and
>>gradual adoption of other enzymes. Either design or evolution would work
>>for those. Behe's argument is that there are *some* cases (certainly not
>>all) where gradualism or adoption wouldn't work - where the system
>>absolutely needs all components working exactly as they are or there
>>would be absolute systemic failure (a couple of his examples are the
>>blood clotting cascade and the immune system).
>How do you tell gradualism or adaptation or exaptation will not explain a
>case? The question is not whether the system needs all the pieces but
>whether there is some means of assembly. As the example of the arch
>illustrates, supporting parts could now be lost since the system works
I don't agree that all you need is a means of assembly. You would
require that a large number (esp. in the case of coagulation) of proteins
would come into existence but have no use and hang around long enough for
all of the "scaffolding" to disappear for them to actually have a
function. If your looking at adoptionism, you then have, in many, if not
most, cases, a situation where you would need multiple proteins to become
adopted for a completely different use all at the same time, or death
ensues. At this point, you're into some fairly extreme probabilities.
>><Jeffrey Lee: email@example.com @@ \
>>><Quality Systems Development @@@ \
>>>><Isis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. @@@@ \
>>Standard Disclaimers Apply: My views are my own unless they're not.