Prof. Behe's debate with Prof. Moran

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Bilbo

Dr. Swamidass, no, I never abandoned the IC1 argument, which is that IC systems cannot evolved directly from simpler systems which do the exact same function, since by definition there are no simpler systems that do the exact function.

That is the hypothesis we are testing @Bilbo, it is not the definition of IC1. Remember it?

@swamidass

a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.

The hypothesis that Behe puts forward is that IC1 system’s cannot evolve. You can’t restate the hypothesis as evidence that the hypothesis is true.

Where in this definition is homology (similarity) between different flagellum considered? Why would that matter in determining if a system is IC1?