Posted: Jun 26, 2010 11:22 am
by CharlieM

Are you of the 'an evolutionary explanation must provide a mutation-by-mutation reconstruction of a phenotypic change' school of ID-thought? I'm asking because that betrays a perfectly awful understanding of science, and I am extremely reluctant to waste my time on perfectly awful understandings of science.

Only where its needed. You can postulate co-option, its a perfectly reasonable assumption although things would need an awful lot of tweaking. But with something like the flagellar propulsion system (the rod, hook, filament and associated proteins) where there is little evidence of a system to co-opt from then you have to start looking at gene duplications, inversions, individual mutations, things like that. The proteins involved need to be of a very precise structure to function without being detrimental to the life of the organism.