Proving irreducible complexity with a cell-phone

so why to choose a gps parts? only if you know that you will end up with a gps. only a designer can do it. not natural selection.

this is observed fact that if we will remove some parts from a biological system it will stop function. so here is your experimentation.


Even Behe doesnt say an evolving phone is not allowed to have non-phone functions prior to its completion as a phone!

He says an IC cant have ANY function at all - - prior to becoming a phone!

Case closed. Full stop. You just contradicted several prior posts regarding what I.C. means!

Deja vu:


Behe says removing parts must eliminate ALL possible functions … not merely the function of the final assembly.

To argue anything less is not only an abuse of Behe, but it also reveals that you dont understand what Behe is arguing.

Great! Does this sudden change of argument mean that you recognize why a cell phone (real, or hypothetically organic) cannot be used as scientific evidence against evolution?

Are you ready to move on and engage in scientific arguments? If so, I would suggest starting here:

Which Irreducible Complexity Argument?


Reference Design Featured

1 Like

No, that’s not what he says. That’s a complete misunderstanding of the argument.

Well, then at least we have a really simple thing for you to prove or disprove, right?

Because the only thing that makes I.C. refutation at all sensible is to argue that if there are no intermediate functions that a moderate mutation addresses … then, by definition… feathered wings have to mutate all at once, in nearly complete form… or a bacteria’ flagellum… or whatever the proposed IC structure is.

@Mung, if you are going to argue that SOME function is allowed, then you have lost the whole point of the discussion: the odds of a mouse-trap evolving in complete form goes way up if a partial mouse-tap helps an animal float across water better… or if it can be used to keep away predators.

So… you are going to need to prove TO YOURSELF that you have mis-remembered Behe’s words! I’m quite sure you won’t believe anything I find for you to read about what he says!

Please show that we will not get a cell-phone in such a way.

Would it be out of line to point out that by any Biblical standard, talking to far-away spirits qualifies as witchcraft, therefore cell-phone users should not be suffered to live?


step1: any structure can basicallyuse as a paperweight. so why to choose a paperweight in a shape of a phone case?

Why not choose a paperweight in the shape of a phone case? You are the one claiming that it can’t happen, so lets see the evidence.

because in this case you choose it because you want to build a phone in the future. evolution cant do that. only intelligent.

Please demonstrate that evolution can’t do that.

Now you’re just making knee-jerk responses. Of course evolution can’t build a phone case because it wants to build a phone in the future. You have to think before responding, even with scd.



The point of this phone example is not that it HAS to be a box that looks like a phone…

… no, its about the reality that most anything complex, couod very easily have come out of a history that is much more boring… and having little to do with the ultimate function.

For example… not EVERY reptile species in the age of dinosaurs made good candidates for flying.

Brontosaurs and stegosaurs were nowhere near close.

The early step - - which made flight conceivable millions of years later - - was yhe mutation for hollowed-out, light weight bone structures.

There was ZERO need to fly… but there was another need … to assist in respiration!:

See link:

@scd, please respond.

evolution cant choose something that we will need only in the future.

1 Like


If you dont reply to my post above on hollow bird bones, ill flag your post.

Why would it need to?

Is the cell-phone case necessary for the function of the cell phone? If you removed the case would the cell phone continue to function as a cell phone?

If so, then the cell phone (with case) is not irreducibly complex.

So, bad example.