No, you are wrong because you change the definition of IC system. If a part being removed from a system does not make the system non-functional, by definition of an IC system, it was not part of an IC system because no part can be removed without there being failure.
I've already pointed out we can lose limbs , we can lose an eye, etc and we won't die in most cases, but that is because the body as a whole is not an IC system with the function of sustaining life. But there are parts that if they were removed, we will die, like the heart, respiratory system, immune system, etc. People with AIDS have compromised immune systems which leads to various form of fungus and infectious disease that kill them eventually.
You have to be careful to define a system in terms of a function, in that all the parts contribute to that function. You cannot just define an entire body as IC if not everything in that body is necessary to the function of sustaining life.
So I've not really been all that nit-picky with the whole definition of irreducible complexity. I think that's a bit of a red herring frankly, primarily because your definition of IC has no bearing
on the process of evolution. It simply does not, and you really aren't getting that.
According to you, irreducible complexity is defined as a system that should one part be removed would cease functioning. If you use that definition, then the claim that the existence of an irreducibly complex system refutes evolution as an explanation for that system is wrong
. As has been shown to you several trillion times in this monster of a thread, a system such as this can be built up utilizing other existing parts that are later removed. You, mister mechanical engineer, should damn well understand concepts like scaffolding
, and stop-gap solutions
. This whole "irreducibly complex systems (using your definition of IC) can't be iteratively built up" is f**king WRONG
. I get that you don't want
it to be wrong, but it just clearly f**king is. Plain as day.
Where you keep getting confused is with this notion of intention
. As if the evolutionary process has some predefined goal of producing an eye or an immune system. Eyes evolve strictly out of the necessity of survival and reproduction. That's it
. Evolution isn't this sentience that starts off with a single-celled organism and puts together a Pert chart and project plan for "making an eye".
Organisms reproduce; the offspring of these organisms retain traits of the parent organisms; reproduction is an imperfect process so some traits are slightly modified; these modifications have ramifications on the probability of survival and reproduction of the organisms; the probability of survival and reproduction is dependent upon things like environmental factors, presence or absence of predators/prey, etc.; traits that increase
these probabilities will have a tendency to propagate more vs. traits that increase less
these probabilities; these traits can be independent of other traits, work in concert with other traits, or work in conflict with other traits. Sometimes those traits have multiple potential useful functions, and in some earlier iterations function a
is the critical function for the emergent system, but functions b
are useless but not detrimental. After many successive iterations and offspring, slight change d
comes along that leverages functions b
, and this new emergent function displaces the original emergent function that was served by function a
. Eventually, after many successive iterations and offspring, slight change e
comes along, that leading to yet again new emergent function that not only displaces the emergent function that was served by function a
but does it better
. Eventually, after many successive iterations and offspring, emergent function from b/c/d/e simply outperforms
emergent function from a/b/c (in terms of survival and reproduction) and, eventually, function a
disappears (or becomes vestigial, or is incorporated in some other emergent function).
Should one of those functions be a human eye, so be it. But the process of evolution had no goal whatsoever in producing that eye. It's not like evolution needs to "know" that it will need function e
at some point in time in order to propagate function b
; all that matters is that incorporation of function e
in the organism still results in a net positive evaluation of the fitness function of "survive and reproduce". That's it.
So go ahead and have your arguments of the definition of IC. It doesn't really matter though, because, if you win your argument, that means that IC has no
ramifications for the model of the theory of evolution. And, ultimately, has no bearing on anything
. Unless you find it useful to have a keyword to express the notion that some systems break when you remove sh*t.