No trouble at all.
but not clear that Behe's two statements contradict each other.
Then I'll be glad to clarify.
The first quote merely refers to a precursor system that SERVES THE SAME FUNCTION. It does not mean that the parts of a system can't have some function IN ANOTHER SYSTEM.
Yes it does.
At least it better mean that, because if Behe meant that passage the way *you* wish to interpret it, then the claims he makes in it are quite simply and obviously wrong. In your effort to try to "solve" the contradiction between the *two* statements, you've made the first statement *self-contradictory* all on its own, because his *reasoning* in that statement becomes illogical if he's *not* talking about systems that become completely nonfunctional in any way if parts are removed.
Hardly an improvement.
But in any case, your interpretation is obviously incorrect. In example after example throught the book, Behe measures whether a system is "IC" based on whether it would (allegedly) lose its *current* function if any part were removed.
In his illustrative "mousetrap" analogy, for example, which keeps popping up throughout the book, he keeps hammering on the point that taking away a part (or substantially changing a part so that it didn't mesh with the others) would render it incapable FOR CATCHING MICE. Behe places a great deal of significance on this observation.
Nowhere does he admit (or attempt to deny) that a mousetrap without, say, the trigger would still be a very functional memo clip, money clip, or closure clip for half-eaten bags of snacks.
It's entirely clear that when he writes of the "remove one thing" test and describes the "nonfunctionality" that he alleges results, he's fixating on *the* one function it currently fulfills. In fact, numerous times Behe writes of "the function", a clear indication that he's considering a single, well-defined functional use for the system.
Furthermore, the passage "A" I quoted makes absolutely no sense unless it's read only with the presumption that the *current* function is all there is or can be:
Claim A: "An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly by numerous, successive, slight modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. ... Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working, then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to act on."His meaning is clear. In his own words, "any" missing part at all renders the remaining parts "by definition nonfunctional" -- not just "functional in other ways". And it is upon this very assertion of "nonfunctionality" that he bases his claim that the system would then have to arise "all at once" (or in his words, "in one fell swoop"). He also explictly claims that prior to the system arising (in a form functional for its *current* function), there would not be "anything for natural selection to act on" -- this again logically implies that there is *no* alternative functionality for natural selection to act on; the system reverts to a pile of junk useless for any purpose.
In the article he gives a quote from his original work, "Darwin's Black Box" that refutes the idea he is moving the bar on this.
He's not moving the bar *now*, he moved it within a few short pages in his original book. On page 39 he introduces his definition of "IC" that critically depends on *no* alternative function if any part is removed and the "original" function is broken. Then on page 66 he waffles and admits that subcomponents *could* fulfill other functions after all, which cuts the legs out from under his argument on page 39. Oops.
He torpedoed himself.
You can't have a mousetrap that lacks a spring.
And yes, I'm familiar with Behe's attempts to handwave away glue-traps by introducing vaguely different "category names" for glue traps and snap mousetraps. I'll be glad to show why his attempts to draw an artificial line between the two fails to support his "IC" notion, if you like.
That is not the same as saying a spring can't be used for other things.
And if it can, then it can be acted on by selection, and yet again that's the reason that Behe's "claim A" deflates like a defective balloon.
All of the parts used for a moustrap could be used for something else, but no precursor MOUSETRAP system could funcion without all of those parts of the system in place.
Wrong again. A reducibly complex mousetrap. Or simply:
