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!:
@scd, please respond.
evolution cant choose something that we will need only in the future.
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.
Not if you drop it
This is not how Dr. Behe defines Irreducibly Complex.
What are you even doing here … if you can’t get your own man correctly interpreted?
if i understand your point then i think that it will be impossible to do that. try to do this with a cell-phone. if you will remove some parts you will end up with no function at all and not with other function. the same is true for a biological system. indeed, in some cases we may have other function (for instance a car engine can be used as a blow heater)
but it can be true for any step between.
because we need to get a cell-phone.
Paperweight. Or a cellphone dummy. A broken cellphone can be used to pretend you’re busy. Nonfunctional look-alikes can be used to fool people. Cellphone mimicry can make me look like I’m very active and occupied when my boss comes by.
we already talked about this scenario and why it will not work. basically any shape can be used as a paperweight so you have no “selection pressure” to choose a paperweight in the shape of a cell-phone.