I think you need to re-read Behe's explanation of the term "irreducibly
complex." I took it to mean that something is irriducibly complex when it
cannot fuction if *any* parts are missing. There are perfectly healthy
people all around you with missing pieces and parts. I, myself, had my
tonsils removed 40 years ago.
>The idea that man evolved from apes (which is really what you are saying,
>isn't it >Rich?) is too comical to take seriously.
I utterly agree. The evidence seems to point to the fact that we evolved
from a common ancestor which was not like modern apes.
>I mean, what could be more irreducibly complex than the human brain?
there are plenty of people walking around with pieces and parts missing
from their brains. So much of it is so redundant that we can lose quite a
bit and still remain alive.
>Besides, the earth isn't old enough for any real "common descent" to have
Upon what scientific evidence to do base this claim?
>Or take the bombardier beetle? How could it evolve such a complex and
>defense mechanism one piece at a time without blowing itself up, poisoning
>or getting eaten because the mechanism misfires? There's a good example of
.organism-level irreducible complexity.
old Bomby the Bombardier Beetle! haven't heard from him in a coon's age!
:-) this line of argumentation has been so completely refuted elsewhere I'm
not going to take it on.
>Rich Daniel inquired:
>Have you read http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html?
>I have; it's utter crap, and that's putting it mildly. A couple of
>know-nothings . . .
nice to see this discussion is going to stay on a rational scientific level
:-) perhaps you should select a bit of crap and explain to us exactly what
is wrong with it.
btw, your e-mail address still doesn't work
Life is short, but it's also very wide.