(November 10, 2008 at 5:16 pm)CoxRox Wrote: 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.The whole thing that you must remember here is that both the flagellum and syringe are made up of different proteins. In different arrangements, these proteins do different things. I'm trying to come up with an analogy that you can understand, but so far I seem to have failed miserably (my fault entirely).
The mousetrap is a good example though, so I'll try to explain it a bit better. A mousetrap consists of 5 pieces: a board, pin, hammer, spring, and latch. Separately, these can do jobs on their own. For example, the board could be used to draw straight lines with a pen, the pin could be used to hold things up against a noticeboard, the spring in a clothes peg. Furthermore, arrangements of these elements can also form specific jobs. For example, the hammer, spring, and board make a very nice tie-clip; the latch, board, and pin could be used as a rudimentary notice board (using the latch to hang it).
So if we agree that Behe meant that I.C means that if any of the parts are removed, the entire original function (in this case, the ability to catch mice) ceases to function, then I have no problem with I.C. Certainly there are many things that could work for this definition.
The problem lies within Behe's attempts to use this as a "proof" that Evolution cannot occur for these systems. As he allows subsets of elements to have their own functions, there is no reason why a combination of the subsets could evolve to form the entire set.
Imagine that the mousetrap elements are natural and can evolve for a moment.
Say we have an organism that has a notice board attached to it (for whatever reason), so the board and the pin are in place. The organism could also have a tie-clip appendage (spring, board, and hammer) in some place. A mutation takes place that adds the tie-clip to the notice board. Now, although annoying, the noticeboard can still be used as such (you can still stick things to it if you avoid the hammer), and the tie-clip can likewise still be used. Neither of the functions have been destroyed. Another mutation takes place, adding a latch that locks the hammer in place. The function of the tie-clip is suddenly destroyed, but the mousetrap function is born. If the mousetrap function is better suited to keep the organism alive, it will be chosen by natural selection, and be passed on.
*phew* I've just explained evolutionary biology with mousetraps.
Hopefully you can visualize this. Otherwise I'll have to resort to drawing it
