Irreducible Complexity.

[Tiberius]

Adrian, you are surely wrong on two counts: 1)To say it has nothing to do with IC and 2)to say it doesn't stop functioning. It will no longer function as a mouse trap which is the purpose of the combined parts. This is very clear to me and is a clear example of irreducible complexity. So I don't understand your first point??

You say: '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.'

I am struggling to see how it is not saying this. I've read many articles by ID supporters since reading Darwin's Black Box which appear to agree with your statement and this has no detrimental effect to the concept of IC. I will try to cover your last point about natural selection when I reply to Leo.

Irreducible Complexity as understood by the scientific community is where you cannot remove parts of a biological system and still have the system functioning. However, as many scientists have shown, there are biological systems that are simply extensions of already functioning systems. The bacterial flagellum is an extension of the bacterial syringe for example. There is no reason to suggest that these parts could not have evolved from each other. Thus, the bacterial flagellum is not Irreducibly Complex.

If however, your definition of I.C is that when you take any piece off of a biological system, the system loses it's original function, then I agree. There are instances of I.C in nature. However, this doesn't mean that these were designed or that they disprove Evolution anymore than the fact that a man cannot exist without a head disproves Evolution.

Leo, I'll start off with a quote if I may:

''Behe never suggests that subsystems cannot play some other role in the cell—in fact he suggests the opposite. Rather, Behe simply argues that evolution requires that the total system must be built up in a
slight, step-by-step fashion, where each step is functional.
Miller has mischaracterized irreducible complexity, and his test is a straw-test for refuting irreducible complexity. The test for irreducible complexity does not ask “can one small part of the macrosystem be used
to do something else?” as Miller claims, but rather asks “can the system as a whole be built in a step-by-step fashion which does not require any ‘non-slight’ modifications to gain the final target function?” Any nonslight modifications of complexity required to go from functional sub-part(s), operating outside-of the-final system, to the entire final functional system, represent the irreducible complexity of a
system.'

http://www.discovery.org/a/3718

Sorry that was a bit long. I said a similar thing in my last post to you and asked if you agreed and you said no. I am struggling to see why you say no. Adrian seems to be taking issue with this as well, so I think before we proceed to the 'gradual step by step' evolution of the system, and why I maintain this is 'impossible' if something is truly irreducibly complex , we need to clear up this point, if that is ok.

The problem with Behe's argument is that his summation of Evolution "Behe simply argues that evolution requires that the total system must be built up in a
slight, step-by-step fashion, where each step is functional." is wrong.

Evolution works nothing like this at all, since Evolution has no goals. Behe thinks that Evolution selects only the best and functional mutations, but this is simply not the case. Natural selection means that the organisms more fitted to survival will pass on their mutations. A mutation that is detrimental usually doesn't get passed on, but that doesn't mean that every mutation that is pass on is somehow "positive". There are mutations that are ineffective at doing anything, for instance: an extra finger (I'm keeping it large scale for ease of understanding). Extra fingers often aren't detrimental in any way, but neither are they advantageous. They also do not add to a function.

The same can be applied to the small scale, where bacterial mutations are often simply kept because they do not have any negative effects. These mutations may very well come in handy later on, at which point the addition of a new mutation causes them to have a function.

I hope you understand now.