Evolution cannot account for irreducible complexity

Plagiarism is masquerading another"s work as one"s own. Be sparse with that word. I agree absolutely when you state "Evolution is known to alter biological systems by adding, removing, and modifying parts." I will clarify later why it does not apply to IC systems. And you left out one part. Selective pressure, which I will clarify later. I will defend my examples first. The argument for IC in blood clotting systems only work after the fork (Of the intrinsic, and extrinsic pathways), like I mentioned in the previous round. The example of the mice fails because not only is there NO FUNCTIONAL clotting system in those mice, your source is also contradictory to your statements. The mice has lost two portions of the system and is thus able to survive. The loss of one of those parts results in "high mortality, wasting, spontaneous gastrointestinal ulceration, rectal prolapse, and severe thrombosis." To quote from your source. The loss of the second part reverses that trend but do not give back any clotting ability. Please do not misrepresent your sources as I regard Cell highly and they certainly published no such thing. [1] As to bacteria flagellum, I am unable to find your [17], could you give a link to somewhere online? Here are the entries for the proteins you are talking about. [2][3] Quite simply, you have not responded to my arguments. From the sources, these are the functions of the proteins. Flil-Probable catalytic subunit of a protein translocase for flagellum-specific export, or a proton translocase involved in local circuits at the flagellum. May be involved in a specialized protein export pathway that proceeds without signal peptide cleavage. [2] [4] FliH-Needed for flagellar regrowth and assembly [3] The Flil is not physically part of the flagellum, and thus cannot be used to rebut an argument about its IC. The FliH is only needed for regrowth and assembly. Certainly a fully grown flagellum would not need it any longer unless it is damaged. Therefore it cannot be used against IC unless you can show that flagellum can grow without it. If I am wrong about this please correct me. Your [16] talks about function of the export process without these proteins, not the IC portion of the flagellum, which I have made clear in R2. I would encourage you to post a detailed evolutionary synopsis. You have proposed three solutions by which IC systems can arise. I will deal with each in turn. However, I will first address a common problem facing the first two. All evolutionary changes function by selective pressure [5][6]. The lack of even one of the parts (In all your examples) means that there is no selective pressure FOR the changes. In fact, there will be a selective pressure AGAINST! I will explain following. Argument from scaffolding (Your [7] does not work). [7] Of all your sources, only [6] is relevant even though it still has a fatal flaw. (You don"t have to cite sources to try to win the source vote. Better quality sources is all that is needed.) I will only rebut your analogy, since you have not provided a biological example. In the first diagram, there is already a function. The addition of D and the removal of B has no selective pressure because there is no benefit that would help the organism survive! In fact, the organism would require more energy to produce D and would be overwhelmed by competition from its more "normal" neighbors who would not have such a disadvantage. Thus, this argument cannot be used in any form due to its contradicting the theory of selective pressure (for which there is much evidence, unlike the scaffolding hypothesis) Argument from incremental addition. Your [10] is a duplicate of your [6]. You just needed to have written "10. Ref. 6." Your [11] is a repeat of [7], and is a 404 error. [8] I have placed a link to your [12] in my [9], and a link to [13] in my [10]. [11]. Now that the sources is cleared up, I will respond to the argument. Your example has internal biological errors. Firstly, increased catalysing speed is NOT beneficial. Furthermore, there are already examples of enzyme inhibition. [12] Inhibitors are analogous to your analogy"s part B. We know that inhibitors can be removed, so this is not a IC system. Secondly, parts do not just pop up to solve problems. Let me give an illustration of how difficult it is to create a part. [See 13, 14]. Let us assume 1. That nucleobases spontaneously generate and appear whenever we want them to. 2. That there is a perfectly random choice of nucleobases. 3. Each base has an equal probability to the other. 4. The gene length for part B is 1500 bp, half the average gene length. Now there are four bases, Therefore, each base would have a 1/4 probability. We know from drawing a probability tree that the probability of this gene occurring is (1/4)^1500, which is incalculable with normal computer calculations. The base is way over an octodecillion. This, in human terms, is impossible. In addition to all of the above objections, any mutation in an enzyme would denature it [15]. This is because enzymes are highly specific and does not allow for modifications. Argument from co-option. Once again, there is problems with your arguments and your source. I have included a link to your [15] in my [16]. Your argument is that S. chlorophenolica PCP metabolism is a IC system. This is your argument, not mine, or anyone"s else, including the article"s. The article talks about the evolution of the organism to metabolize PCP. You have extrapolated this and claim that it is an IC system. It is not! This organism shows that it is able to adapt under selective pressure, but it is not an example of an IC system. In conclusion, two of your hypothesis cannot work, and one is not an example of an IC system. Your objections to my examples of an IC system has been responded to. Lastly, you have badly used your sources, something I request you refrain from doing in the future. It is perfectly fine to cite an inordinate amount of sources, as certainly I will go through them, and hopefully learn something. However, it is not alright to cite something that has no bearing on your arguments. Now back to you.