Irreducible Functionality

back to http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology

Irreducible optimized functionality
The achieve the function or purpose of catching mouse needs five parts. There can't be less than five parts or the optimum functionality won't be achieved.

Removing two parts as Kenneth Miller does achieves the fuctionality of a powerful paper clip: it no longer can catch mouse automatically. Miller is equivocating between different types of functionalities with the word "complexity". A better term for Behe's (Irreducbile Complexity)IC is Irreducible optimized functionality. The purpose of the mouse trap is to catch mouse unattended which as far as mouse trap engineers can determine needs a minimum of five parts. Removing the mouse base and stapling it to the floor doesn't remove the purpose of the original base but replaces one type of base for another and it removes the mobility of the mouse trap thus reducing its overall purposefulness: Reduced functionality.

Same with the flagellum, it needs 40 parts to swim through the fluid: to achieve the purpose of Irreducbile Optimized Functionality(IOF). The type III secretory mechanism which injects toxins needs 8 parts to achieve a different IOF. purpose. They both use some of the same shapes, they both need a minimum of 40 and 8 parts respectively in order to optimize their functionality. Some IC systems could still function with less parts but like the mouse trap stapled to the ground at the cost of reduced functionality.

With less than 40 parts, a Calvyn and Hobb's creation is made, more a Rube Goldberg contraption. Both the toxin and flagellum use a round shape reducing friction the most. A watch and turbine use round shapes because it achives optimized fuctionality.

Dutch
http://www.wetenschapsforum.nl/index.php?showtopic=81509&st=555

Het begrip IC komt voort uit de manier waarop wij een systeem ontwerpen: De onderdelen als geheel verkrijgen door de manier waarop ze samenwerken functionaliteit die de onderdelen afzonderlijk niet hebben. Het geheel is meer dan de som der delen. Als we dan willekeurig een deel wegnemen of veranderen verliest het geheel vrijwel altijd een deel of de gehele functionaliteit. De functionaliteit is dan niet reduceerbaar. Persoonlijk vind ik 'complexity' in deze context veel te ambigu, Behe had beter irreducible functionality kunnen gebruiken.