From GilDogen, in a comment on: Jonathan Wells on Darwinism, Science, and Junk DNA.
Moran is particularly vicious concerning challenges presented by ID proponents. He’s a disturbed individual. (That’s not a personal attack, just an empirical observation, and I hope he gets over it somehow.)I'll try really, really, hard not to be vicious or mocking in response to the redundancy argument. Instead, I'll just pose a few questions that occur to me.
Another factor in biology that should be considered is redundancy and backup systems, which are standard fare in human engineering. Redundant/backup systems ensure survival if one or more of the primary systems is disabled or compromised. In aviation, fly-by-wire systems (in which the pilot does not directly influence the aircraft’s control surfaces, but provides input to computer systems that execute the pilot’s commands) provide three or more redundant computers that process the pilot’s commands and vote about the outcome. If one computer disagrees, the majority wins.
- Almost all
IDiotsintelligent design proponents accept microevolution. Why don't the unused redundant systems accumulate mutations and become junk?
- Why would a truly intelligent, omnipotent, designer need to create redundant back-up systems?
- When we look at genome sequences we don't see any evidence of redundant back-up systems for DNA replication, the citric acid cycle, or lipid metabolism (or anything else). Why?
- Why are there so many genetic diseases if everything is backed-up?
- I can see why I need two kidneys, but how come I've only got one heart?
- Why didn't Wells mention redundancy in his book?
- Where is the theory of redundancy published?