Barbarian observes:
And yet, we see fitness in natural populations increase.
Yeah, you just keep saying that to yourself and maybe you can convince yourself it's true.
Even your creationist masters admit that's a fact...
Natural selection, or “survival of the fittest,” is the observable process by which organisms with specific characteristics survive and reproduce better in a given environment.
https://answersingenesis.org/search/?refinement=&language=en&q=natural+selection
You're not just ignorant of biology, you're in the dark about creationism as well. AiG doesn't deny it, because there's no point; it's demonstrably true. Maybe you should go update a bit?
Shannon applies to all messages, be they in the cell, between the cells, between the organs that the cells make up, or between parent's and their children's DNA. There are even more biological messages than that. In every case, every message can only work as intended if it is received exactly as it was sent or close enough to be reconstructed as the original message.
Where in genetic transcription, translation, or protein synthesis, is there "intent?"
Sometimes degraded messages can be acted upon well enough to avoid catastrophe
Or, as in the cases you learned about, improve the system. How do you figure such information is "degraded" when it actually works better than the original?
but eventually a degraded message harm the system.
Sounds like a testable assumption. How does the HPAS allele in Tibetans "degrade" them? (it's the gene that allows them to live at very high altitudes without the drawbacks of increasing hematocrit levels). Tell us about that.
And burning a bridge to hold off in invading army works better than letting them cross. It's still degradation.
Suppose that instead of burning bridge, the defenders built a pulley system to swing it up so it coudn't be used until they lowered it again? Yes, burning the bridge was a feasible solution, (like a lizard sacrificing a tail to escape) but then they had to rebuild it. Building a bridge or regrowing a tail takes resources. The drawbridge was a mutation that improved the process of keeping the enemy on the other side of the river. Deceptive coloration would be an improvement for the lizard. That's how evolution works.
Doesn't matter. The fact is, by Behe's definition, the evolved system is irreducibly complex. To make it work, you have to have three factors, the nutrient, the allele, and the regulator. Remove one of those and it won't work.
It does matter. Without adding a false factor, you only have 2.
Behe merely says "part." So any part that works in the system applies. I understand that you don't like his definition, but that's the one you have. This is why Behe has admitted that it's possible for irreducible complexity to evolve, even though he thinks it doesn't.
(attempt by Yorzhik to modify Behe's definition by excluding "inefficient" systems that work)
"Work inefficiently" is not part of Behe's definition. Nice try. You're between a rock and a hard place here.
You don't understand the challenge of irreducible complexity. My example has three factors. An inefficient precursor has nothing to do with Behe's definition. I understand why you want to change it, now that you've been shown an example of an evolved irreducibly complex system, but you'll have to do with Behe's definition.
all derived though 1-3 mutations acting on existing structures at each step.
There were more than that.
Are you suggesting this is how all irreducibly complex things were created in biology?
Scaffolding is one way. Sometimes an optional feature can later become required. Sexual reproduction is like that. Would you like to learn more about those?
Did the mousetrap you bought have writing on it too?
I never considered writing to be a "part." But in some cases, I suppose it could be. As you now see, a mousetrap can work without many of the parts found on a normal mousetrap.
Each has all 5 factors listed by Behe,
Nope. It has fewer parts, read it again, carefully.
and the series does not derive one to another.
But it does. Each succeeding trap has another part added.
That's the point. The scaffolding gets beyond the edge of evolution when more than two, possibly three, mutations are required to build it.
No, that's wrong. The irreducibly complex enzyme system I showed you, had more than that.
As I said, even Behe now admits in principle that irreducible complexity can evolve. This one just never worked for ID, and few IDers say much about it, any more.
coagulation as viewed from a comparison of puffer fish and sea squirt genomes
Yong Jiang and Russell F. Doolittle
PNAS June 24, 2003 100 (13) 7527-7532
Abstract
The blood coagulation scheme for the puffer fish, Fugu rubripes, has been reconstructed on the basis of orthologs of genes for mammalian blood clotting factors being present in its genome. As expected, clotting follows the same fundamental pattern as has been observed in other vertebrates, even though genes for some clotting factors found in mammals are absent and some others are present in more than one gene copy. All told, 26 different proteins involved in clotting or fibrinolysis were searched against the puffer fish genome. Of these, orthologs were found for 21. Genes for the ``contact system'' factors (factor XI, factor XII, and prekallikrein) could not be identified. On the other hand, two genes were found for factor IX and four for factor VII. It was evident that not all four factor VII genes are functional, essential active-site residues having been replaced in two of them. A search of the genome of a urochordate, the sea squirt, Ciona intestinalis, did not turn up any genuine orthologs for these 26 factors, although paralogs and/or constituent domains were evident for virtually all of them.
