[general_re]

Oh, well, in that case, the concept of irreducible complexity is even more worthless than it appears at first blush, since nowhere is there the requirement that the precursors or descendants of some structure perform exactly the same function as that particular structure does. In fact, evolutionary theory predicts quite the opposite, and suggests that we ought to see old structures adapting to new functions over time.

I suppose I should say that there is no such requirement in evolutionary theory or in nature - it appears that Behe and Dembski are all too happy to invent such a requirement, that the precursors must perform the same function to be considered precursors, out of whole cloth in order to strengthen their case.

[AndrewC]

I suppose I should say that there is no such requirement in evolutionary theory or in nature -

What!? You are now disavowing the fitness function? How the heck can evolution work if changes are not driven towards a fitness?