RAZD, the experiments were dona in a lab right? I think IC is using "real" life evidence as being complex? So shouldn't a test to falsify it use "real" life as well?
Life continues to be real even if you put it in a laboratory.
The question was: can mutation and selection achieve such a thing. The answer is yes. Unless there is some magical property of laboratories that should make us think that the answer is "yes, but only in laboratories", then this observation is relevant to things that happen outside laboratories, and would not have been more relevant by virtue of being made in a pizzeria, a football stadium, or a bicycle repair shop. Why should the location of the observation matter in the slightest?
Isn't this the same as me sticking a rabitt fossil in the pre-cambrian?
Also, I can see where IC can be falisified with there strick guidelines. And if it MAY or MAY not have happened isn't good enough or "we don't know". Isn't tho, there some things about Gravity, or the BB that we don't know 100%?, but still qualifies as a theory?
I guess what I mean is, if ONE such "IC" system has NOT evolved is that a case for "IC" ? Is Behe or others putting themselves in a "box" with their definitions?
Well, there argument goes like this:
(1) IC can't evolve. (2) Some things are IC. (3) These things can't evolve.
Now their conclusion depends on (1) being a true generalization. If IC can evolve, then their logic is broken.
This is not to say that they couldn't come up with some argument why such-and-such a thing can't evolve, but it can't be founded solely on the observation that the thing is IC.
(1) Mammals don't lay eggs. (2) This is an egg. (3) This was not laid by a mammal.
Since the discovery of the platypus and the echidna, point (1) is known to be false, so (3) doesn't follow from (2). (3) could still be true (the egg could have been laid by a chicken) but we can no longer prove (3) by an appeal to (1) because (1) is now known to be false.