[biblewonk]

The "irreducible complexity." concept uses a mouse trap for an illustration. Since removing any one of the seven parts renders the trap useless it is irreductibly complex.

The example given in the article seems to compare two components which each contain thousands of building blocks. We still end up with a compenent that is useless if not complete and whose completeness is overly complex to fall together by any random chance.

[Ophiucus]

We still end up with a compenent that is useless if not complete and whose completeness is overly complex to fall together by any random chance.

Not by random chance - it didn't just suddenly fall together in its finished form. It is a building and developing process, hence evolution. It starts small, simple, and limited and then develops into a larger, more complex, and more dynamic component.

[newgeezer]

The one I like is the example provided by the woodpecker. As I recall, it goes something like this. The woodpecker has 3 features which enable its feeding: the long stout beak, the shock-absorbing skull, and the extremely long tongue that wraps around the back of its skull. Take away any one of the 3, and the whole feeding process is destroyed.

So, did the woodpecker evolve all 3 at the same time? What are the chances? Which came last, the tongue, the beak, or (the "logical" choice) the shock-absorbing skull? Once all 3 pieces were in place, how and when did it evolve the instinct to feed the way it does?

I've no doubt the Evolutionist Church has the solution to this apparent puzzle.

[Ichneumon]

The "irreducible complexity." concept uses a mouse trap for an illustration. Since removing any one of the seven parts renders the trap useless it is irreductibly complex.

[...]

but they are extremely extrememly extremely... complex and if you try and simplify them, they are nothing, nadda zip. Just like a mouse trap minus any one component.

That's another funny thing about Behe and his followers. Not only do they simply *assert* (without bothering with that pesky "evidence" thing) that certain biological systems can't be successfully reduced, even their "intuitive" *examples* are wrong.

So a mouse trap is "irredicubily complex", as Behe and his followers, say, eh?

Sorry, wrong again. A reducibly complex mousetrap .

If Behe can make a mistake about whether something as simple as a *mousetrap* is "irreducibly complex", how can we trust his intuition on the harder stuff, like biological systems?