the word is "irreducible"
that word means "cannot be reduced"
Person A: this structure has an irreducible complexity of 40 proteins
Person B: well, this variant does the same job with 33 proteins
that knocks the "irrecucible" bit out the window... until the IDiots move their goalposts... AGAIN.
.
.
.
I apologize. My hands don't work very well...and I struck the incorrect key. I didn't see my error. I do understand the definition of irreducible.
So the issue is that it is stated that a structure has been postulated to be "irreducible" at 40 proteins and now it has been discovered exist at 33 proteins. So irreducible has become a moving target?
BTW...why are you so demeaning?
because I am grown weary of seeing the same errors based on argumentum ad incredulum posted over and over and over as "scientific"
I am not "demeaning" - I am sarcastic and uncharitable.
IDiocy is itself demeaning.
Irreducible is not just a moving target. It is a fantasy. It is not just that the 40 unit thingie can be reduced to 33 parts. It is much worse than that. The forty parts can be broken into other less complex things that serve less complex functions, but are nevertheless useful.
Irreducible complexity is not a new idea. The entire concept in its modern form was published 200 years ago. It was the inspiration for Darwin to do his research. Origin of Species was his response. there is nothing in Behe's argument that wasn't published 200 years ago and which hasn't been the foil, so to speak, behind most biological research.
Do ya think KING may have something to do with it???