I'm with Ecco on this, that's not how I think IC is meant to be. It's more of the idea that a complex part can't be reduced to smaller functioning parts. Not that they're necessary to be or do the same things as the original complex component.
As a theoretical concept and reasoning, I do think IC is decent. I have nothing really against the concept, however, the implementation is mostly based on ignorance and unimaginative minds. X evolved from A or not, but is irreducible because A) We don't know how the parts could have been useful because we haven't found evidence yet (ignorance), B) We can't imagine how the parts could have been useful in themselves (unimaginative). So the actual practical use of IC isn't much until you can beyond doubt show and prove that something must've had outside, non-physical help for A to go to X.
My example of the cell I think is appropriate. Remove the DNA, or the cell wall . or some of the proteins, and the complexity of the cell, which requires those things, makes the cell dead.
The ¨parts¨ themselves out of the complex cell are very problematic. DNA degrades very quickly, the information is lost. Ditto for most everything else.
The issue to me isn´t proving that something had outside non physical help. That is a faith position, a proposition of supernaturalism.
What I am interested in is showing that abiogenesis itself is a faith position.
It is BELIEVED that chemicals under unknown conditions, unknown chemicals, in unknown combinations, somehow in an unknown way, in an unknown environment. came together to create a living organism.
The evidence does not bear out this belief, just as the physical evidence is judged by science to not bear out what I believe.
Somehow the science label of the research, and the research itself, makes some people think it is a superior position and proven.
It is neither superior or proven, it has no more value in determining how life came about than divine creation.
Yet, Creationists are considered silly and stupid, and believers in abiogenesis, a totally unknown process, never observed, never replicated are considered as being knowledgeable about the origin of life.
It is an idea, accepted by faith, as the truth.
Someday it may be proven, and I might have to accept that my faith was misplaced, but it HAS NOT.
I read the research, I read the counter arguments, I see the holes, and I express them, sometimes to the anger of true believers. Yet they can rarely refute what exists.
Faith is faith, It is not provable fact. That is my point. We are all entitled to believe what we choose, but we are not entitled to pump up our belief by false sterroids to make it what it is not.
Re ecco, I blocked him a long time ago, he is a non entity to me. I do not see anything he posts, and I certainly do not want to see it. I have no interest in what is anathema to civil discourse.
