>> What, in your opinion, are the “IC” parts of the blood clotting cascade?
> Behe described them in his rebuttal to Miller’s deceitful slight-of-hand
> deconstruction of hte reducible aspects of hte IC systems- you’ll
> find his rebuttal on his site ‘arn.org’ I beleive it is
Was it this paper?
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_indefenseofbloodclottingcascade.htm
Because, if so, he doesn’t really address which parts of the original cascade are “irreducible”.
I think Casey Luskin, as js pointed out, did explicitly list them. A copy of his diagram is here:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/files/2009/01/luskin-fig-5.jpg
The “irreducible” parts are, supposedly, the ones in the red box on the left.
Problem is that Russel Doolittle from UCSD just published last year a study of the lamprey genome, and factor V (in the red box) does not exist.
See further discussion here: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2009/01/02/smoke-and-mirrors-whales-and-lampreys-a-guest-post-by-ken-miller/
[[Problem is that Russel Doolittle from UCSD just published last year a study of the lamprey genome, and factor V (in the red box) does not exist.]]
Not sure what your point is? Factor V is missing in lampreys? Big deal? Again, how does this relate to humans or species that rely on Factor V? Have they shown lampreys had it in the past, but lost it without ill effect?
Gotta leave for awhile, but like hte link to creationwiki I posted said- pointing to an animal that is completely different than us, and statign that because they have different mechanisms for blood clotting in no way undermines the fact that blood clotting in other species NEEDS the IC parts inplace or else they’ll perish. Animals, espeically species which live in water envirnments, could and most likely very well do have a compeltely different blood clottign mechanism by DESING.
