Posted: Jul 22, 2010 10:58 am
by Shrunk
CharlieM wrote:The ten parts that Miller has left are non-functional as a motility system. He has taken forty parts away and the motility system has lost its function. Therefore as a motility system it is non-functional. Why does Miller never acknowledge this?

Behe has clearly changed his original definition of IC in order to accomodate the refutation it suffered by Miller and others.

LIke all all creationists, you are attempting to deflect away from the crucial issue Behe never addresses: On what evidence does he base his claim that an IC structure cannot arise thru evolution? What his argument amounts to is saying: "Some things we know to be designed are IC. Therefore, anything that is IC is designed." I hope the logical fallacy is obvious.