Quote:
Originally Posted by The12thMan
Arguments against it generally consist of "it could have happened this way" and other types of "maybe" generalizing. Now that's sad. Dismissing conjecture with conjecture. Why not leave the question open?
|
Two problems with that:
1. Irreducible complexity relies on the argument that "this couldn't possibly have evolved, because it doesn't work if it's missing any parts." To disprove that, all you've got to do is show a plausible path for the organ's evolution, because at that point it's no longer "irreducible." It's not necessary to demonstrate that a given path is actually how it evolved.
2. The previous point notwithstanding, most refutations of irreducible complexity claims do, in fact, provide evidence of how a given part evolved, using extant animals and fossil records. So it's not pure conjecture, and in some cases it's not conjecture at all.