[Bob434]

[[I mean that if an organelle lacks, say, one component out of 1,000, it doesn’t merely work 1/1,000th less efficiently: it doesn’t work at all.]]

He should have worded that a little more carefully because evolutionists make the silly argument that it could lose a NON ESSENTIAL component and still function- Behe of course did NOT mean that losing a non essential part would result in failure- He meant that losing one IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX and necessary part would result in something being non functional. The evolutionist’s counter claims were very disingenuous because they knew exactly what he meant but misrepresented his statement

[Mrs. Don-o]

I read a book-long refutation of Michael Behe by Kenneth Miller that was impressive --- extremely impressive --- except --- he still didn't explain how *essential* components could be missing, and the intermediate forms still survive.

Seems to be a tautology in there somehow. If it was essential it couldn't be missing, if it was missing it couldn't have been essential, yadda yadda...