>>14317018>Why didn't you finish the quote?I did finish it, I posted the entire sentence. Why do you think the next sentence is part of the quote?
>He is qualifying the degree of IC.In the second sentence, yes. In the first sentence he is defining it in exactly the way you claimed he didn't. Why did you lie?
>Clearly re-affirming what I have said the whole timeSo you've said the whole time that an irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway is one that contains one unselected step? Amazing reversal.
>Nowhere in the quote does it imply the pathway cannot be overcome if the degree is small enoughCorrect, the quote says nothing about whether Behe thinks irreducibly complex evolutionary pathways can occur. But he thinks they can't. And thanks for finally admitting my definition of IR is correct.
>Conceptually the same as Behe's first quoteYes, proving my point that one part of the system is enough to make it "irreducably complex." Thanks for finally admitting that. You're now saying that irreducible complexity can indeed evolve. We've made a lot of progress. Now you just need to show what exists that can't evolve.
>I have no idea who these people are.You claim to be an ID proponent but don't know who invented the idea? LOL.
>None of them required zero useless mutations.They did. I quoted them. All you can do is lie about what's right in front of your face. Pathetic.
>I said ID proponents too, not creationistsSame thing.
>I say novel benefit to definitively establish the benefit is novel within a "lineage."Once again you fail to explain anything. How is being novel in a lineage relevant? Natural selection doesn't care.
>Mutations/generation divided by # of needed mutations to cancel out units, take reciprocal to get # of generations needed.This is complete gibberish. You didn't even calculate a probability. It's amazing how willing you are to just spout bullshit without understanding anything about the topic.
