For example, the first directly-observed instance of an irreducibly complex system evolving was in bacteria.
If it evolved then it wasn't irreducibly complex. What did it evolve from? Let me guess from a bacteria.
Bacterium. Singular is "bacterium." Yep. As you know, they evolve a great deal faster than other organisms, because their generation times are so short.
However, the new enzyme system was irreducibly complex by Behe's own definition. A new regulator (which prevents enzyme production unless a substrate is present) evolved, which meant that substrate, enzyme, and regulator all had to be present for the system to work. Even one component missing meant that it would not work.
or did it evolve from nothing?
If it did, that would be a stunning refutation of evolutionary theory. Evolution always procedes by modifying something already there.
IF it evolved from nothing I am interested.
Sorry. Evolution doesn't work that way. I think you might be more effective against biology if you knew more about such theories.
Did you observe this?
Dr. Barry Hall observed it. Much to his surprise (he was working on something else) a regulator evolved in his bacteria.
Yehren observes:
Fact remains, bacteria evolve much more rapidly than vertebrates, as the theory predicts.
I know your right because I was cooking a chicken tonight, and I think I got some bacteria on the counter and a bit later I saw an ant crawling away.
As I said, I think you'd be more effective against biology if you knew more about it.
And in response to your assertation that evolution explains why basteria looks like "ancient" bacteria. That is funny because it seems like you are telling me evolution explains why organisms ramain the same and evolution explains why organisms change.
Right. It's quite testable. You are confusing stabilizing selection with disruptive or directional selection. Evolutionary theory says that natural selection will tend to increase the fitness of populations. But remember, fitness only counts in terms of environment. This means that if a population is well-fitted to an unchanging set of selective pressures, then natural selection will prevent evolution. So if a population of bacteria are at an optimum size and shape for their envirionment, they won't change much in appearance.
It is all empty claims.
See above. There's a lot more to learn before you get a good idea of what it's about.
You are telling me the things that can evolve the fastest change the least,
No. I'm saying that bacteria have changed very little in shape, but have changed rapidly in biochemistry. As noted above, we've seen remarkable changes in a very short time.
and the things that evolve slowly change the most.
Nope. Go back and read it again.
Why don't these fast evolving bacteria behave more like the bacteria from my supper and crawl away?
Read it again, carefully, and I think you'll understand.
