Irreducible Complexity.

[CoxRox]

Leo, the original definition by Behe states:
''A single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function of the system, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.'

William Dembski's defines it as:
''A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, nonarbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system's basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system.''

I understand the part you have highlighted in bold seems to be disagreeing with what I said in my previous post. Dembski states:
'A system is irreducibly complex in Behe's sense if all its parts are indispensable to preserving the system's basic function. That an irreducibly complex system may have subsystems that have functions of their own (functions distinct from that of the original system) is therefore allowed in the definition'.

http://www.designinference.com/documents...sponse.htm
So the wording in bold is I believe misleading.

I do not understand target function. Is it to do with mathematics? Why do you ask?

Adrian- are you saying that the syringe is a separate new function, and that the flagellum still operates fully, if you take parts away or are you saying that by taking parts away you get a new function- hence the syringe and then you no longer have a fully functioning flagellum? I had a brilliant article regarding this which I have spent the last two hours trying to find and can't. I will come back to you on this.