Elizabeth Liddle- Still Choking on Irreducible Complexity

-
Elizabeth Liddle is wulfully ignorant- either that or she is just plain ole stupid. I say that because hshe just spewed:

  Behe claimed that the bacterial flagellum was unevolvable, because it was “Irreducibly Complex” i.e. wouldn’t work minus any one part, and so you’d need the stupendous coincidence of all parts just happening to appear together before it would confer any advantage.

Unevolveable via Darwinian processes, ie accumulations of genetic accidents- Lizzie has been told this many times but she refuses to understand what is being debated. Oh well/

She goes on to spew:

But he forgot, apparently, that the parts could perfectly well confer some other benefit, even if not the benefit of the flagellum, when not all were present.

Hope- from Dr Behe himself- Irreducible Complexity is an Obstacle to Darwinism Even if Parts of a System have other Functions:

Ooops, again Lizzie fails. But that diesn't stop her:

 And the Pallen and Matzke paper showed actual examples of homologous features of the flagellum, but without its other parts, but which perform a beneficial function for their bearers. 

So what? That has nothing to do with the proposed mechanism AND homology is mostly assumed. That also has nothing to do with genetic accidents producing any bacterial flagellum.

But anyway- The following may have been updated:



Irreducible Complexity:

IC- A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, non-arbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system’s basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system. Page 285 NFL

Numerous and Diverse Parts If the irreducible core of an IC system consists of one or only a few parts, there may be no insuperable obstacle to the Darwinian mechanism explaining how that system arose in one fell swoop. But as the number of indispensable well-fitted, mutually interacting,, non-arbitrarily individuated parts increases in number & diversity, there is no possibility of the Darwinian mechanism achieving that system in one fell swoop. Page 287

Minimal Complexity and Function Given an IC system with numerous & diverse parts in its core, the Darwinian mechanism must produce it gradually. But if the system needs to operate at a certain minimal level of function before it can be of any use to the organism & if to achieve that level of function it requires a certain minimal level of complexity already possessed by the irreducible core, the Darwinian mechanism has no functional intermediates to exploit. Page 287

Dr">http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_brresp.htm">Dr Behe responds
to IC criticisms:

One last charge must be met: Orr maintains that the theory of intelligent design is not falsifiable. He's wrong. To falsify design theory a scientist need only experimentally demonstrate that a bacterial flagellum, or any other comparably complex system, could arise by natural selection. If that happened I would conclude that neither flagella nor any system of similar or lesser complexity had to have been designed. In short, biochemical design would be neatly disproved.- Dr Behe in 1997