Irreducible Complexity.

[CoxRox]

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.

---

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.