Irreducible complexity- the challenges have been rebutted (if not refuted)

Hi Crash, I beg to differ, if IC is defined as a system that fails when one part is removed, then IC is abundant. What is unwarranted, however, is the claim that it cannot evolve.Mark

Crash, I agree, they seem to think that because IC can be shown to exist, it is unevolvable by definition. It isn't.Mark

Xzen,Please demonstrate, without recourse to arguments from incredulity, that IC cannot evolve. When you've done this, you have ruled out Evolution, until then.....Mark

Xzen, How about you support your primary assertion, rather than try to move the goalposts from ID.I repeat, with amendments:"Please demonstrate "one unambiguous observed example" that ID couldn't have evolved (what's good for the goose, right?), without recourse to arguments from incredulity. When you've done this, you have ruled out Evolution, until then....."I want FACTS, not a scientists opinion. Perhaps if you could provide Dr Minnich's data from which he asserted the flagellum couldn't have co-opted other structures, & at the same time tell me how he can be so sure that the alleged co-opted components haven't simply vanished in their original form, leaving nothing from which to infer?Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 10-20-2003]