Evolution cannot account for irreducible complexity

My opponent is engaging in what is known as the “Gish Gallop,” wherein he makes a large number of untrue claims and half-truths and leaves me with the job of fixing them. This gives me less time and space to provide my own arguments, and allows my opponent to create the false illusion of challenging my existing arguments. I encourage the reader to recognize this as they read through. ALLEGED IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX (IC) SYSTEMS 1. The Vertebrate Blood Clotting System Is Not Irreducibly Complex My opponent is wrong about everything he said in the previous round on this topic. He either chose not to read the study I cited, or he has chosen to mislead the readers. If he didn’t have access to the study, he could have told me. The study I cited shows that REMOVAL OF TWO PARTS of the clotting system in mice, fibrinogen and plasminogen, leaves those mice in “good health” with “remarkably strong growth and survival characteristics.” [1] Moreover, the study shows that these mice – with two parts of the clotting system removed – had wound healing rates that were identical to normal mice.[1] My opponent claims the mice had “high mortality, wasting, etc.” and “NO FUNCTIONAL clotting system.” He is wrong. Read the study. Mice that had ONE PART REMOVED had this problem, but mice that had TWO PARTS REMOVED from the clotting system were healthy and the clotting system functioned.[1] Thus, the system is NOT irreducible. If my opponent isn’t going to read the study, then he might as well not provide a response to my argument. 2. The Bacterial Flagellum Is Not Irreducibly Complex In the previous round, I noted that the flagellar system is not irreducibly complex. I showed that researchers recently discovered two proteins – FliH and FliI – can be removed from the flagellar system and it will still function.[2] These proteins are involved in the assembly of the flagellar structure, protein transport, and penetration of the flagella into the cell membrane.[2] My opponent claims that proteins involved in assembly, transport, and penetration of the flagella into the membrane are not part of the flagellar system. This is convenient for him, because it allows him to continue claiming the system is irreducible. But, in 2006, Behe, the creator of irreducible complexity, said himself that the flagellar system “requires about forty proteins for function. [T]hey include … proteins to allow the flagellum to penetrate the cell membrane and wall; [and] proteins to assist in the assembly of the structure.” [3] In 2004, Behe stated “the bacterial flagellum is an even more sophisticated system than had been thought. Not only does it act as a rotary propulsion device, it also contains within itself an elegant mechanism to transport the proteins that make up the outer portion of the machine, from the inside of the cell to the outside.”[4] He clearly states that assembly, transport, and penetration of the flagellum are components of the flagellar system. Notice also that his descriptions came before scientists discovered that these proteins weren’t required for the flagellum to function. My opponent is now attempting to shrink the scope of this system so that he can continue to claim it is irreducibly complex. He is not making an argument. He is simply moving the goal posts because the evidence does not support his view. EVOLUTIONARY PATHWAYS THAT LEAD TO IC SYSTEMS 1. Evolution by scaffolding can explain IC Systems Regarding my diagram, my opponent says “the addition of D and the removal of B has no selective pressure because there is no benefit that would help that organism survive.” My opponent is wrong that there is no benefit. Notice also that he does not deny that if there were selective pressures, that an IC system would be created. I will now clarify why my opponent is wrong about there being no beneficial advantages and that there are indeed selective pressures. He is correct that both Part D and Part B serve the same function, and this is known as functional redundancy. Functional redundancy itself can be a benefit.[5] It makes the system more robust because if one piece fails, the system will still work. Having both pieces is beneficial because it reduces the likelihood of system failure. This is why elevators have emergency brakes and parachutes have backups. My opponent ignores this possibility. If the selective pressures against the organism changes, functional redundancy might no longer provide a survival benefit. If this happened, the extra use of resources by the cell to make both of these two parts could become harmful. As a result, Part B could then be removed by natural selection, as the diagram shows. Additionally, my opponent ignores that Part D might be better than Part B. Part D may allow for a “sturdier” bridge than Part B, even though they both perform the same function. Thus, the addition of Part D would be beneficial because the bridge is better. And, because Part B would no longer be necessary, the removal of Part B would be beneficial and selected for. My opponent ignored this possibility as well. My opponent does not deny that, if selective pressures existed, this process could lead to IC systems. I have shown that selective pressures could easily exist. Therefore, evolutionary scaffolding continues to explain how IC systems can be created. 2. Evolution by incremental addition can explain IC systems Regarding incremental addition, my opponent claims “increased catalyzing speed is NOT beneficial.” Notice he has no source. It’s because he’s wrong. Increasing catalytic activity could be evolutionarily beneficial. This is because it would improve the rate or efficiency at which new or existing enzymatic pathways work, and indeed there is evidence to support this idea.[6][7][8] For example, if a cell is exposed to toxic compounds, natural selection might select for enzymes that can remove these compounds faster. My opponent’s argument that increasing enzyme catalysis couldn’t be beneficial, and that this somehow refutes incremental addition, clearly fails. That is not to say that increased catalytic activity couldn’t be harmful, it simply depends on the environment of the organism. In other environments, a high rate of catalysis might not be as important or could be harmful. My opponent then makes a ridiculous strawman argument about creating parts that has nothing to do with the mechanism of evolution that I described. I won’t waste my time responding to it. My opponent has offered no substantive rebuttal to the evolutionary mechanism of incremental addition. My claim that evolution through incremental addition explains IC systems is still supported by clear evidence and remains unchallenged. 3. Evolution by co-option can explain IC systems My opponent also claims that the PCP system is not IC because the study doesn’t contain the words “irreducibly complex.” The paper DOES say that all three parts of the system are required to perform its function of metabolizing PCP.[9] If any part is removed, the system is unable to perform its function and cannot convert the toxic compound of PCP into a non-toxic product.[9] This is quite literally the definition of IC. My opponent may claim that the paper doesn’t use the language “irreducibly complex,” by why would it? The notion of “irreducible complexity” exists almost exclusively in the realm of creationism and few scientists would waste their alotted article space by addressing this fringe idea. The system fits the definition of irreducible complexity, and we have evidence it evolved. This is all we need to know. CONCLUSION My opponent has not offered any logical or factual challenges against my claims that evolution can explain irreducible complexity. I provided three evolutionary mechanisms that explain the process of evolution creating IC systems, and he has failed to challenge them. Further, my opponent has completely lied to or misled readers about the vertebrate clotting system, and has attempted the change the definition of the flagellar system.