Bacterial flagellum

since i happen to have behe's book on hand at the moment, page 38 says, down at the bottom, the following.

quote:

---

Hitching's argument is vulnerable because he mistakes an integrated system of systems for a single system, and Dawkins rightly points out the seperability of of the components

---

in other words, an irreducibly complex system has to have no subsystems, but be entirely integrated and co-dependent.from the kenneth miller v. michael behe debate:

quote:

---

We start with a [] fifty part bacterial flagellum, we take away forty of the parts, and what that does is it leaves just ten parts behind. [] Those ten parts ought to be non-functional by [Behe’s] definition of irreducible complexity. But it turns out [] that they are not. Those ten parts turn out to form the type three secretory system.

---

oops.behe's reply is relatively weak, he restates his new definition of irreducible complexity as meaning that the overall function of the designated system fails. ...well, duh. of course it does.but parts aiding subsystems can be build upon subsystems until a new, full system evolves, with a seperate purpose. sometimes, this original subsystem will even become unneccessary, and be removed.everything contains subsystems, down to the molecular level.sorry behe, you point out your own flaw.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 06-09-2004 07:05 AM

hi.read the quotes.behe points out that any argument pertaining to irreducibility of an "integrated system of systems" is vulernable to attack. that's what i'm doing. his systems have subsystems.i'm not saying its parts have other uses, but that systems contained within them function on their own without other parts being required.