Behe's Irreducible Complexity Is Refuted

You didn't test your own link, did you ?http://EvC Forum: Willowtree's Scientific Evidence against Evolution -->EvC Forum: Willowtree's Scientific Evidence against Evolutionis the correct link - you need a '/' between "Forum5" and "HTML"It is a good idea to use the Preview option to check your links - especially if you are typing them rather than using cut-and-paste. And if you didn't check your link the first time then you definitely should if someone says that it didn't work.

If you have worked out a practical way to reliably apply Dembski's filter to biology then please tell us. And you'd better tell Dembski, too because he hasn't been able to manage it.

You're even wrong about what Behe says.Behe admitted that indirect routes were possible. All he offered against that possibility was his unsupported personal opinion that such routes were so unlikely that they should be dismissed.To this day it remains an unsupported personal opinion - while evidence to the contrary, such as that shown in post 1 continues to mount.Behe's argument is thoroughly dead.

In _Darwin's Black Box_ Behe admitted that his argument did not rule out indirect routes.While I don't have the book to hand the quote can be found online in a number of places - on sites that agree with and sites that disagree with Behe. (Taken from Irreducible Complexity Demystified )As I have stated Behe has never justified his claims concerning probability. They remain his personal opinion, and therefore his argument remains incomplete.This paper looks at the possible routes (as general classifications)
http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/staff/dave/JTB.htmlI beleive that you have misunderstood Perakh's comments, and that he is referring to "Irreducible Complexity" as the term is used in Algorithmic Theory of Probability (see Talk Reason: arguments against creationism, intelligent design, and religious apologetics )

It is quite obvious that you are making the error that I suggested. Perakh and Behe are using different definitions of irreducible complexity.And Behe's claim that irreducibly complex systems defy evolution is simply his opinion - and one he has still not adequately supported. And given the evidence produced to the contrary (see post 1 for an example) it looks like Behe is wrong. And in that case IC is NOT evidence for ID.

I can only repeat the point that Perakh is using a DIFFERENT DEFINITION of irreducible complexity from Behe.And has has already been pointed out Behe agrees that it is *possible* for IC systems to evolve by gradual change. His only objection is an unsupported opinion about the probability - an opinion that remains unsupported to this day.So no, there does not seem to be any discrepency to address.