(Last one - sorry)DrTesla
- Later you say, in response to jdawg70, that:
... your analogy actually describes intelligent design. You have a 3rd party to a process planning improvements (you even use the word experimenting) and thus bringing about gradual change and a more complex approach.
The analogy concerned a mousetrap, which we know isn't subject to modifications via natural processes, so your observation is moot.
Later on, in reply to Zankuu, you ask:
Do you reject the bacterial flaggellum, the eye, and blood clotting cascade examples usually given?
Several pages ago I offered you a seven-minute YouTube video in which Ken Miller debunks the bacterial flagellum example. I'm not sure if you ever watched it. There's a longer, two-hour video, of which the one I originally posted was an excerpt:
On Miller and Levine's Website
you'll find a pre-publication article on the matter. Two other authors wrote an article in Current Biology
(but which is, sadly, not open-access - curse you, Elsevier!) on the specific subject of the bacterial flagellum.
You have been provided other links concerning the notion of the irreducible complexity of the eye. Again, it's not clear from any of the past posts that you've read or watched any of the material presented to you.
And I see that William has recently posted material concerning the blood clotting cascade mechanism.
So why do you continue to assert, despite your own self-confessed lack of expertise, that these
(Sorry, three.) systems are irreducibly complex?
Later still, you say that:
It is self evident that cells are self replicating, otherwise Darwin evolution could not occur. Even if there is an intelligent designer, there is still cellular replication, so that is irrelevant to the issue of irreducible complexity.
Self replication doesn't explain how a natural process of gradual change can lead to a system that does not work if even 1 part is removed and the parts themselves are non-functional in terms of the goal function of the system of which it is a part.
The ability to self-replicate is relevant to the point in the sense that in the case of non-living objects, there exists no natural
process by which you could end up with improved copies of them over time.
By contrast, in the case of living things that make somewhat-inaccurate copies of themselves, in an environment whereby natural processes determine which living things are capable of reaching maturity, finding a mate and producing offspring.
On to your second paragraph: how are you defining the 'system', a 'part' and the 'goal function of the system'? These are somewhat vague terms and it's important to pin down what you mean in order to address it usefully.