How does Complexity demonstrate Design

this is a brilliant assertion.i'll be sure to add it my new theory -- stupid design.anyhow. allow me to quote-mine behe for a second here:

quote:

---

I do not say that just because they can't be produced natural selection, they're uh, products of intelligent design

---

http://www.ncseweb.org/..._dr_michael_behe_dr_10_31_2002.asp

well, i'm really just being a smart ass.

i'm starting with behe. so far, he's full of crap. here's the quote i posted earlier: also, irreducibly complex systems may not have subsystems by his own definition (page 38-39). i'm pretty sure any component parts can be read as subsystems of amino-acids, nucleotides, dna, molecules, atoms, and so forth. so, any irreducibly complex system cannot have parts. and so nothing is irreducibly complex. qed.

this quote, if anything, shows that behe is full of crap.think about it for a second, how can something be irreducible if it can be reduced to components? behe argues repeatedly that he's not concerned with major systems, but the minor subsystems it is composed of. have you read darwin's black box? i'm working on it.can you reduce the bacterial flagellum to a subset of working components? yes? then it's not irreducible.but a more important question: can parts around the garage randomly make a mousetrap? all it takes is a paint can and an unsteady shelf, and bad luck on the mouse's part.now, if it my garage were a biological system, and found that it LIKED killing mice, perhaps next step would be evolving that unstead shelf into a trigger. some kind of luring device might be next. maybe a propulsion system for the paint can to improve reaction time.unfortunately, my garage is not biological. to compare it to a biological system is silly. genetics and generations don't apply to the garage, and neither does variation and natural selection.

do a google search.there's literally tons of examples.

no, complexity is an arbitrary measure. it doesn't necessarily go for less complex to more complex either, sometimes just the opposite.

details change, yes.the overall theory has not so much as wavered. the biggest evolutionary shift in the last 150 years was the discovery of archaeopteryx. and we didn't throw away the other parts.and what has continually changed? i followed popular paleontology from the age of about three, and i haven't seen a lot of continual changing. i mean, there was the occasional study that showed a new dinosaur a million years back from when we thought they popped up, but no major evolutionary shakeup. just a few minor revisions.