Can't ID be tested AT ALL?

I think that I understood what is meant by "irreduciblly complex."
Not having any text before me, and in my own home grown words this is what I think it means:A system with N functional parts can only do the job it is suppose to do with N functional parts. If you reduce one of the parts from the system, say N-1 functional parts, the system simply cannot perform its function.I never really got the idea that really really complex means irreducibly complex. I got the idea that N units working together can perform a certain task. You can take units away up to a point at which reducing any more units from the complex renders the system functionless.I recall the example of a mousetrap. You can take away the color from a red mouse trap and it will still do its job. But you cannot take away, let us say, the coiled spring. If you reduce the coiled spring from the mouse trap, it won't function to trap the mouse.

So predictable. I could have written that response myself.Okay, EXCUSE ME for not mentioning Behe. But if you insist that I give credit to wherever I heard the concept first, yes it was Darwin's Black Box by M. Behe. I found the book an enjoyable read.Now, for the refutations: Yes I read a rebuttal to the mousetrap example. It amounted to cleverly making up for the taken away parts to assure that the mousetrap could still do its job, up to a point.I would have to re-read that little rebuttal before getting into a discussion on it. But generally most of the loud boasting I hear that Behe was refuted so, so, many times, seems mostly hot air.I mean I have seen this or that point debated. But has anyone written a book of similiar length taking each chapter to task? It seems that over the Internet there's a lot of bragging about how bad Behe was refuted. I often question whether some of these braggers have even read Darwin's Black Box.Anyway, my post was just to supply to the discussion what I thought the concept of irreducible complexity meant.This message has been edited by jaywill, 05-06-2006 11:13 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 05-06-2006 11:21 AM

Ned, Maybe Inkorrect has some simplified abbreviation of the definition that s/he has developed. That was my first thoought. Maybe s/he doesn't really know what IC originally was intended to mean.Behe, in person, is kind of humorous about the term. Though he seemed to take the concept seriously he was "tongue in cheek" about how popular the phrase "irreducibly complex" has become - kind of like it was not that much of a new idea. That was my perception. Maybe I read his attitude wrong when I heard him speak at a local university. Do you mean N parts cause the system to do one function A and N+1 parts cause it to do (in addition) another function B? So then by removing N+1 the system still performs function A?This message has been edited by jaywill, 05-06-2006 11:36 AM

Would that be evolution or the reverse of evolution? Would that be a kind of degeneration yet still performing the useful function? Should the loss of the hinge be considered evolution or degeneration?This message has been edited by jaywill, 05-06-2006 12:46 PM

I'm a little skeptical of this claim. But to be fair neither have I read Origin of Species all the way through or Blind Watchmaker. So what I complain about above I also am guilty of.This message has been edited by jaywill, 05-06-2006 12:50 PM

Ned,You're the software guy, right?