"The basic logic of IC [Irreducible Complexity] goes like this:
A functional system is irreducibly complex if it contains a multipart subsystem (i.e., a set of two or more interrelated parts) that cannot be simplified without destroying the system’s basic function. I refer to this multipart subsystem as the system’s irreducible core.
We can therefore define the core of a functionally integrated system as those parts that are indispensable to the system’s basic function: remove parts of the core, and you can’t recover the system’s basic function from the other remaining parts. To say that a core is irreducible is then to say that no other systems with substantially simpler cores can perform the system’s basic function.
Then, after a post by Neil Rickert, joe-boi came along and said this:
December 18, 2011 at 6:04 pm
ALL living organisms are IC.
Notice first that joe-boi didn't contest the definition of IC posted by torley (as originally stated by dembski). Since joe-boi asserts that "ALL living organisms are IC" I'll proceed on the basis that he thinks that all parts of ALL living organisms are necessary for them to 'function'.
So then, according to joe-boi, if a person loses (or is born without) a finger, a hand, an ear, an eye, both eyes, their hearing, a toe, an ovary, a testicle, their legs, any part of their brain, a lung, a kidney, all of their hair, and/or an appendix, they can't 'function'.
If a butterfly or other flying insect loses or is born without an antennae, a leg, an eye, and/or any portions of its wing(s), it can't 'function'.
If a cat or a dog loses or is born without a tail, it can't 'function'.
If a rattle snake loses or is born without a rattle, and never grows a rattle, it can't 'function'.
Any organism with anything missing or damaged can't 'function'.
joe-boi is proof that an IDiot with most of its brain missing or damaged can barely 'function' but not thrive.