Was it? So a mousetrap works just fine if it is missing one of its components? So a human doesnt need all 10 of its vital organs?
Irreducible complexity was debunked along with Behe's mousetrap a quarter century ago.
Just like my question asking for a PLAUSIBLE Order of 10 Vital organs from Microbe to Microbiologist, We are merely asked to believe that it happened but arent allowed to actually try to analyze it using reason, logic, and critical thinking..
Yes, it was. Behe proposed the mousetrap as a good example of irreducible complexity (IC).
No, a MODERN mousetrap doesn't work just fine if it is missing one of its components. However, I can provide at least two different models showing how the modern mousetrap could have "evolved" to it's present, irreducible, form.
MacDonald's model starts with a bent wire which "evolves" by:
1) Adding turns to the wire making it a spring and increasing force
2) Adding bait to attract mice.
3) Stapling the spring to the floor so it can't simply be knocked over.
4) Attaching the trap to a piece of wood instead of the floor to make it more portable and versatile.
5) "Evolve" the "hammer" by lengthening the wire and changing it to an L shape then a U shape to improve it's kill probability.
6) Add a hold down bar to make the trap easier to trigger.
7) A series of minor changes improving the performance and cost of the trap.
8) Add a catch to the hold down bar. This makes the trap more sensitive and allows it to be triggered from multiple directions.
A different approach is taken at http://www.fidelibus.com/mousetrap/
What is shown is that just because something is irreducible today, it was not necessarily always irreducible.
I think the problem with evolutionists BK, is they commit hasty generalisation with this irreducible complexity issue. I can take a stool with four legs and I can reduce it's complexity be removing one leg and re-arranging it to be a three legged stool. The problem is even if some basic arrangements can be reduced in complexity this doesn't mean other more complicated structures can be.
The problem is that the premise of IC is flawed.
The problem is even if some basic arrangements can be reduced in complexity this doesn't mean other more complicated structures can be.
Agreed. But the tendency is for more complicated structures to have redundancy. Notice, as an irreducibly complex system, the mousetrap lacks redundancy.
I think the problem is basically that Behe used the mousetrap which is too simplistic. There are systems in place in nature that clearly can't be reduced and if they can where is the argument showing they could be?
Behe seemed to disagree with you. He felt it was a good example to demonstrate the concept of irreducible complexity.
The problem is that it also can be used to show how that which is IC today was not necessarily always so.
I strongly suggest you visit MacDonald's page.
So to my mind, (and I'm willing to be called wrong on this as this is just my provisional opinion given I haven't read too much about this material on this specific design feature) my opinion is that evolutionists kind of use and abuse the fact that Behe likely just gave an example of something that could be reduced in complexity, because he overlooked the fact someone smart might be able to reduce the complexity of a mousetrap and he perhaps didn't think it all through, so to my mind evolutionists use that to create a conclusion which is this distorted version of the truth; "IC has been refuted, it's known for years the mousetrap can be reduced in complexity."
Again, Behe correctly points out the modern mousetrap is IC. That is not the issue.
The point is that the IC mousetrap is the result of a series of small improvements. Some of which were IC and some were not.
IC claims an IC object can NOT be the result of a series of small improvements. That is clearly not true.
I think it's more accurate to say that in fact "Behe's particular example has shown some simple things can be reduced in complexity" but to say this generally refutes irreducible complexity is a hasty generalisation, because if a mouse trap or a stool can be reduced in complexity this doesn't mean that everything can be, so how can one or two examples pertain to all of the unusual features in nature? Some things in nature are a lot more complex.
What it does is demonstrate that SOMETIMES IC can be the result of a series of small changes. You can't simply look at something and say: "That's IC therefore it is impossible for it be the result of a series of small improvements."
So to my mind I think Piasan overplays his hand by putting the spin on it that, "it's refuted" as a whole. Is it refuted as a whole? Then put your argument forward and we'll see if you're right.
Refuted as a whole? No.
Is it refuted that a requirement of IC is that the object MUST have originated in its present form? Absolutely.
It is Piasan's claim that IC is refuted as a whole, I am only saying that it isn't refuted as a whole if you show a trap can be reduced because if a trap or a stool can be reduced in it's complexity and still have function, that won't mean that a sea-anemone eating slug can be reduced in complexity and still eat anemone darts. It would seem all of contingencies being in place in order to eat the darts, is perfectly reasonable given how specialised it is.
What I am saying is that just because something is IC today doesn't necessarily mean it always was IC.