"
Molecular Biologist, Scott Minnich from the university of Idaho says,
"Irreducible complexity was coined by Mike Beehe, in describing
these molecular machines. Basically what it says is that you have
multi-component parts to any given organelle or system in a cell, all
of which are necessary for function. That is if you remove one part you
lose function of that system.""
riiight and on that definition IRC fails. why? because you can remove parts from these IRC sytems And still KEEP A FUNCTION. infact, IRC systems are usually a compilation of sub systems which can all evolve, get this, IN STEPS.
"If evolution was true, organisms would not be entirely dependent on cooperative mechanical systems."
which they are..in a sense.
removign pars from a IRC system will stil result in function. because these systems are compiled of sub systems, which all have a different function, a beatiful example of this is the flagellum.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w&feature=channel_page
and for the basics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZdCxk0CnN4&feature=channel_page
"Meaning, organisms would be constantly engineering mechanisms to aid in it's functionality."
which they are....natural selection beign the force killign of the weak or fail designs, while promotign the more useful ones.
we even have observed instances of this...
"Say if humans had legs now, which humans are dependent on, they would
have to have had traces of a pre-evolutionary means of movement, like
fins, appendages or a tail."
while this analogy is slightly incorrect. as it deals with somethign is a MUCH larger scale and gene expression, it is interesting to note that...
-Fetusses HAVE FINS BETWEEN THEIR DIGITS IN THE WOMB! these fins recede and dissapear later in development.
-we STIL HAVE THE GENES for making TAILS, and we occasionally find soem kids with that gene activated.
-all our footbones are found in early primates.....it's called homologeus organs....and on the gentic level, gene homology.
