[tacticalogic]

Why? There’s nothign in that statement suggesting it- Again, we start fro mchemically pure, and devolve into less pure as entropy has it’s way with hte species (I will also point out that htis is exactly what hte genetic investigation called the ‘Mitchondrial EVE project’ has found- more pure to less pure as time goes on)

The agrument seems to be that all species are irreducibly complex, as they exist. Any change - whether you call it evolutionary or de-evoulutionary - is not tolerable to the organism as a whole.

[CottShop]

[[The agrument seems to be that all species are irreducibly complex, as they exist. Any change - whether you call it evolutionary or de-evoulutionary - is not tolerable to the organism as a whole.]]

No it isn’t- you are reading somethign into it that simply isn’t htere- ID possits no such thing, nor do natural laws prevent such htings- infact, it predicts it- the devolution of lifes reducible parts- just as we see in the records. You are trying to assign somethign to IC that is incorrect- and Miller did htis too, and it was intellectually dishonest. As I explained, IC syatems do NOT have to be made entirely of all IC parts- it is the IC parts themselves however that can not be taken out- As well IC systems have levels of tolorances- BUT IF those tolorance parameters are exceeded, then Yes, at that point the IC parts of hte system would render the whole system innoperable.

IC does NOT state that it can’t be reduced or corrupted- it DOES have tolorance parameters that again, are designed and built in, and which help to try to preserve the actual IC parts, but which can noly be modified just so far before the part breaks down and renders the hwoel system- the IC parts and hte non IC parts, innoperable