Yep, CTD is bang on the buck. Not only is it an easy experiment, but it's been done!
I'd be surprised if people here haven't seen this one before, but just in case, here it is again.
Ken Miller Irreducible Compexity: youTube
Ken Miller shows how the bacterial flagellum can be broken down at every evolutionary step.
CTD did nail it for sure.
Thanks for the link Arch, I remember seeing the full version of this a while ago.
Well I guess that talk by Ken Miller did test the definition and falsified it in regards to the bacterial flagellum.
But wait, lets test that test and see if it was actually testing what you claimed it tested.
<object width="445" height="364"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/K_HVrjKcvrU&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&border=1%22></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/K_HVrjKcvrU&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&border=1 type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="445" height="364"></embed></object>
0:25-he provides a definition of IC from Michael Behe
1:05-he gives an ambigous definition of IC, it is not clear what he means by "there is no function", (the parts or the system)
1:24-he introduces the bacterial flagellum
1:35-Some funny anecdotes
2:35-he pretends he is about to define and clarify the definition, acts like he is going to get back into the heart of the matter
2:55-he presents a different definition of IC than the one from Behe (notice the space Miller gets between Behe's definition and his own). Behe's definition does not say that the individual parts will have no function on their own
3:39-Miller further enforces his own definition
4:22-tests his own definition
5:20-the smoke is so thick now that Miller can go back to Behe's definition and pretend that is what he is testing
5:44-presents interpretation of facts as facts, ("what that means" at 5:58)
Talks like this further confirm to me that evolutionists are far better at pursuasion than providing real science and reason to support evolution.
Did Ken Miller never see the difference between the two following statements in the whole time he was preparing his talk?
By irreducibly complex I mean a single system which is composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.
Darwin's Black Box, page 39.
By irreducibly complex I mean a single system which is composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the parts can have no other function.
It is not a hard concept, certainly not too hard for someone like Ken Miller. And to think, all he had to do was show how taking away any one part of a functioning bacterial flagellum left us with a functioning bacterial flagellum.