Evolution cannot account for irreducible complexity

To clarify, last round I stated what I perceived to be my opponent’s tactics. This was not an ad hominem, but an observation. I will let the reader decide on whether he is engaging in this tactic. ALLEGEDLY IRREDUCIBLE SYSTEMS 1. The Vertebrate Clotting System Is Not Irreducibly Complex As I noted in the comments earlier, I apologize to my opponent. I misread his sentence as saying that the previously discussed mice did not survive. As such, in a state of irritation, I wrote my section incorrectly believing he had made a statement that he didn’t. They clearly did survive, as we both stated. In the first round, my opponent claimed that the vertebrate blood clotting cascade requires: (1) Factor XII, (2) Factor XI, (3) Factor IX, (4) Factor VIII, (5) Factor X, and (6) Factor V. Factor V and X then activate thrombin, and thrombin works with fibrin. My opponent argues this system cannot be reduced because it will not function without all of its parts in this cascade. However, we have clear evidence this is not true. One vertebrate, a jawless fish, has a blood clotting system that parallels the human system, except that it LACKS Factor IX and Factor V.[1] My opponent argues that the vertebrate blood clotting system can't be reduced, because it would not function, yet here we have a vertebrate blood clotting system that functions without these supposedly necessary pieces. Not only that, but it provides compelling evidence that evolution can modify systems and increase the complexity of systems through the addition of more parts.[1] Thus, the evidence shows that the vertebrate blood clotting system is not irreducibly complex. Parts of the vertebrate clotting system can be removed, as seen in jawless fish, and it will still retain its function. Moreover, these simpler vertebrate clotting systems provide compelling evidence into how the clotting cascade can increase in complexity and evolve through the addition of more parts. 2. The Bacterial Flagella Is Not Irreducibly Complex Researchers have shown that two components of the flagellar system can be removed and it will still function. I demonstrated that the creator of IC, Michael Behe, said these components were part of the flagellar system back in 2004 and 2006.[2][3] My opponent claims the flagellar system doesn’t include these components, but he provides no evidence to support his claim that the system shouldn’t include them. Instead, he cites two sources that were both written AFTER it was discovered these components could be removed. Thus, my argument that he is attempting to “move the goal posts” still stands. For further support though, let’s focus our analysis solely on the bacterial flagellum apparatus, and forget about other parts of the flagellar system. If the flagellar apparatus could function without a part, it would not be irreducible. Unfortunately for my opponent, we have considerable evidence that these parts are not required for a flagellum to function. The study of numerous bacteria indicates that MANY of these proteins are NOT required for the flagella to function. Several bacterial flagella function perfectly without many of these proteins. In Nature Reviews Microbiology, Dr. Matzke provides a detailed account of the proteins that are not required for the flagellar apparatus to function. I will list them here. These supposed necessary components are missing in numerous bacterial flagella. Simpler flagella can exist and function without the parts my opponent claims are required. Thus, the bacterial flagella is not irreducibly complex, because parts of the system are not required for the flagellum to function. EVOLUTIONARY PATHWAYS THAT LEAD TO IC SYSTEMS 1. Evolution by scaffolding can explain IC systems I have shown that the evolutionary mechanism of scaffolding can create IC systems, and I have demonstrated how each step can be beneficial and selected for by natural selection. My opponent says functional redundancy is not a benefit. But, he ignores the evidence, both logical and biological, that contradict his claim. First, in general systems theory, we know that functional redundancy can be beneficial because it reduces the likelihood of system failure. If one component fails, there is still the backup component – think parachutes and backups. Second, in biological systems we know functional redundancy can confer survival benefits. Yale researchers, for example, note that there is a “reduced risk of extinction via functional redundancy” that can lead to increased complexity.[4] My opponent argues that when there is functional redundancy, there is an extra cost to the organism because it must produce an extra part. This is true. But, if the value of that extra part outweighs the cost of producing it, then we have a net benefit. That benefit is then selected for by natural selection. This is simply a fact. Thus, the evolutionary mechanism of scaffolding can create IC systems. 2. Evolution by incremental addition can explain IC systems I have previously shown how the evolutionary mechanism of incremental addition can lead to the development of IC systems. My opponent continues to argue that increasing enzymatic activity can be harmful. This is true, and I said as much. But, he also continues to ignore that fact that increasing enzymatic activity can also be beneficial. It simply depends on the environment. [See sources in my previous round] Consider the example of toxic compounds. Natural selection may select for biochemical pathways that can quickly and efficiently neutralize toxic compounds. Thus, having improved enzymatic activity would be a benefit in this scenario. My opponent does not contradict this claim; instead he misleadingly focuses on the fact that such changes could be harmful under different scenarios. His other argument regarding the creation of new proteins remains a strawman. The issue he presents is well-understood and not related to whether IC systems can develop. My opponent needs to focus on the actual issues. The evolutionary mechanism of addition remains unchallenged by my opponent. He continues to misdirect and focus on non-issues, rather than addressing the mechanism of evolution. 3. Evolution by co-option can explain IC systems In the previous round, I showed that a PCP degradation pathway emerged through evolutionary co-option and was, in fact, IC.[5] My opponent claims he read the study I cited and that the system isn’t IC. He says he “read it in its entirety. It is three pages long.” First, it’s not three pages long. It’s five pages long. Next, my opponent says “there is also no evidence that it evolved, actually.” However, the paper clearly discusses how the system evolved through the “particularly striking example of ‘patch-work’ combination of enzymes from two different existing pathways.” Finally, my opponent claims there is “no evidence of it being an IC system.” Yet, the paper clearly states that the system requires all three parts in order to neutralize the toxic PCP compound. Without any component, the system fails. This is the definition of IC. My opponent can continue to falsely claim there is no evidence of it being an IC system, but the evidence is right in the paper. Literally every objection offered by my opponent is contradicted by the study I cited. Thus, my argument stands and the evolutionary mechanism of co-option, as shown in the PCP degradation system, can lead to IC systems. <<< CONCLUSION >>> I have shown that three different evolutionary mechanisms can lead to the creation of irreducibly complex systems. Moreover, I have shown that there is evidence to believe that the flagella and clotting system are irreducibly complex, and there is significant evidence to believe that these systems are reducible. My opponent offers a series of half-truths and false statements to attack my arguments. Even when I present evidence showing that he is incorrect, he continues his false claims into the following rounds.