Talk:Some systems are irreducibly complex (Talk.Origins)
Re: "As for (a), it does not say it loses its function if _any_ one part is removed, but that it includes irreducibly complex parts. Let's look at Behe's own definition instead:
By irreducibly complex I mean a single system 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.
As you can see, when he is talking about the removal of "any one of the parts" he is talking specifically about the well-matched, interacting ones that contribute to the basic function. If X is an IC process, adding Y to improve it does not make the result non-IC. It just means that Y is not part of the basic function."
Since Behe defines an irreducibly complex system as one that is "composed" of such parts, rather than one that "contains" such parts, every part in such a system is one that contributes to its operation. A further hint is that Behe says "the parts" rather than "these parts".
Re: "If you delete parts from a system, the subsystem that remains must have been there from the start."
This is also false. The piece deleted does not have to have been the last piece added. Consider inserting a keystone into an arch and then deleting the suppotring frame.
Re: "(1) being able to lose a part does not make something not IC. Refer to the definition above."
Ok, I've referred to the definition above and you are wrong. It would really help your case if you actually bothered to read what you are arguing for.
(if anyone considers this last remark to be disparaging, please delete it and the corresponding remark from the main article)
Roy 15:53, 23 Sep 2005 (GMT)
- Let's use the mousetrap as an example. Behe considers it irreducibly complex. If any of it's parts is removed, it will effectively cease to function as a mousetrap. It may have some function: a paperweight, for example. But as a mousetrap, it is IC. PrometheusX303 03:18, 6 January 2006 (GMT)
I'm honestly not exactly sure what they are suggesting. If someone in the audience knows, please fill in this space.
Behe's illustration consists of a platform, spring, hammer, catch, and holding bar. I'm guessing the latch is the catch.
I think that T.O's suggesting that by bending the holding arm, it will hold the hammer without the use of the catch. Nice on paper, but needs to be demonstrated. Behe defends his mousetrap here http://www.trueorigin.org/behe05.asp PrometheusX303 03:42, 6 January 2006 (GMT)
- T.O. appears to be referring to the scenario outlined here. It involves removing one part (the catch) but instead changing the design of the holding arm in such as way that the end of the hammer acts as a catch. In other words, one part is removed, and another part is redesigned to perform the same function! Philip J. Rayment 12:19, 10 April 2006 (GMT)
- All of the examples are flawed. PrometheusX303 16:55, 10 April 2006 (GMT)
