Replies

For instance, given a system containing parts C, D and E, the system is IC if removal of C, D, or E results in loss of system function. However, it's possible that C, D and E all evolved separately performing functions completely unrelated to the function of system CDE. If that's the case, then there's no reason to believe that if C, D, and E all separately give a survival advantage to an organism that these couldn't have evolved separately. Furthermore, it's possible that a system evolved sequentially starting with part A, and adding parts B, C, D, and E in subsequent generations, to form system ABCDE. Once this system is in place, parts A and B prove to be redundant and are eliminated by further evolution, yielding our IC system CDE. Therefore, the claim that IC systems could not possibly have evolved is demonstrably false.

This one paragraph includes three 'possibles'. One for each premise and one for the conclusion. this is nothing more than wild speculation, with no evidence to support any of it. On top of that, you fail to identify even one example where this has actually happened. You call that science; I call it fantasy.

"You call that science; I call it fantasy."

I would call it a gedanken experiment. Yes, you need fantasy to do it but the logic is correct. With default conditions you reach to a conclusion.

ID implies the impossibility that IC is reached via an evolutionary process. Stremba shows you more than one way how to reach an IC status via an evolutionary process. You don't need an observation of this to happen. The possibility is not zero therefore it is not impossible.

Where has your logic gone?

You miss the point. Behe's claim is that it isn't possible even in principle for an irreduibly complex system to evolve. I have merely pointed out that this claim is false. It is indeed possible for evolution to produce irreducible complexity. This destroys Behe's argument, since there's no positive evidence that IC systems found in organisms didn't evolve. The burden is on those challenging the accepted theory to show that their ideas are better, not on those supporting the accepted theory. So far, ID'ers haven't met the challenge.