Good morning, Evopeach.
You wrote:
quote:
V. It should be rejected that a simple statement of how a viable series of precursors could have come about as a verbal rejourner for such is never permitted in scientifice falsification experiments... iii and IV are required.
The person proposing is entitled to maintain their position of IC until it is falsified as above.
You seem to have lost sight of the fact that Irreducible Complexity is a verbal rejoinder to the theory of evolution. According to your criteria, proponents of the ToE do not yet have any reason to entertain IC as a possible falsification.
Any system you nominate for IC status functions within a large set of complex systems, all of which, according to the ToE, are subject to mutational changes subject to natural selection.
In order for an IC claim to falsify the ToE, evidence must show not only that removing a single component deprives the subsystem of function, but also that it would deprive the subsystem of function in any possible set of companion subsystems (i.e., fail to cohere as a viable, reproducible organism).
You have radically redefined falsification: as already pointed out, IC collapses entirely if a single component can be removed without loss of function--that it cannot is the essence of the IC claim.
It seems fair, since IC is an attempted falsification, for you to go first.
Once you have reverse engineered an organism and demonstrated that the ToE fails because no possible constellation of prior subsystems can cohere as an organism, then ToE will be compelled to consider IC a serious candidate for falsification. As you say,
quote:
Repeating this backwards is a huge task for complex systems that is obvious but that is the only fair falsification
After you, Evopeach.