From: Tim Ikeda (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Sep 07 2002 - 17:31:00 EDT
In VanTill's article, Howard writes:
>Why focus on the bacterial flagellum?
I realize that was a rhetorical question but I do have some
Perhaps because another IC system suggested by Behe, the vertebrate
clotting system, exhibits too much evidence of additive complexity
and retains hints of the historic origins for many of its components?
Perhaps because ancient (2+ billion years old) and highly evolved/
tightly-integrated systems such as flagella might be expected to leave
few hints of origins in the genomes of extant organisms?
Perhaps because the IC systems that have most recently emerged and
which would tend to provide the most reliable and conclusive test cases
for ID tend to look like products of evolution (i.e. the parts tend
to show similarities to other, previously existing systems)?
If the question of ID vs. evolution largely hinges on whether indirect
routes may be accessible for the evolution of IC systems, I propose that
one look at the most recently emerged systems. These are the
ones most likely to retain any information about possible precursors
and are the most amenable to historic reconstruction.
Just some thoughts...
PS: Paul Nelson provides a web page reference for a reply from
Unfortunately, that returns (for me):
>>You are attempting to reach a page that does not exist.
The following URL worked for me:
Here's a question for Paul Nelson, while he is still here: What is
the apparent age of youngest IC system currently being examined by ID
biologists? (Assuming OEC age estimates, of course). Besides resolving
questions of evolvability & etc., this information would also help
determine the relative frequency and timing of possible intelligent
interventions over the history of life. For example, are there de novo
IC systems are not shared between humans and chimps?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 07 2002 - 21:23:12 EDT