(November 10, 2008 at 9:58 am)CoxRox Wrote: Regarding the mouse trap example, you can indeed find a 'different' use for the separate parts of the mouse trap, but by taking one part away you will no longer have a mouse trap. Do you accept this? If you take the base away you would still need to utilise a surface of some kind ie the floor, in order for it to function. I think that using a non living thing is probably not a good idea so we've got to head into complex territory of which I will possibly struggle and this is where I need your feedback.I accept the fact that it no longer functions as a mouse trap, but that hasn't got anything to do with I.C.
Michael Behe (the guy who dreampt up I.C) came up with this definition:
Quote:an irreducibly complex system is one composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.So the mouse trap is not irreducibly complex. You can remove several parts and the system doesn't stop functioning; it just performs a different function. The same applies for the bacterial flagellum. You can remove several pieces and still get a syringe.
If I.C said that the system stops performing the same function after pieces are removed, then sure, both the mouse trap and the flagellum are irreducibly complex. However, it does not say this.
Even if it did however, this doesn't mean that these things cannot evolve through natural selection, because they still abide by the same constraints as the first definition.
