You watched the irrelevant (to this discussion) part of the video. Did you not see this? "You can start about 37 minutes into it if you want to skip much of the Dover school board antics that led up to the lawsuit and get to the trial, the testimony of ID people and the prosecution's experts, and the judge's ruling."
You pay a price for your inattention. Go back to video and begin where you left off.
Or, try this written transcript of the video:
NOVA | Transcripts | Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial | PBS If you go that route - text rather than speech and video - please be thorough and attentive. You will find this there. It's in the video as well, probably past the point where you ended watching it:
KENNETH R. MILLER:
As an example of what irreducible complexity means, advocates of intelligent design like to point to a very common machine: the mousetrap. And the mousetrap is composed of five parts. It has a base plate, the catch, a spring, a little hammer that actually does the dirty work, and a bait holder.
The mousetrap will not work if any one of these five parts are taken away. That's absolutely true. But remember the key notion of irreducible complexity, and that is that this whole machine is completely useless until all the parts are in place. Well, that, that turns out not to be true.
And I'll give you an example. What I have right here is a mousetrap from which I've removed two of the five parts. I still have the base plate, the spring, and the hammer. Now you can't catch any mice with this, so it's not a very good mousetrap. But it turns out that, despite the missing parts, it makes a perfectly good, if somewhat inelegant, tie clip.
And when we look at the favorite examples for irreducible complexity, and the bacterial flagellum is a perfect example, we find the molecular equivalent of my tie clip, which is we see parts of the machine missing—two, three, four, maybe even 20—parts, but still fulfilling a perfectly good purpose that could be favored by evolution. And that's why the irreducible complexity argument falls apart.
Implicitly? As in an idea that you ferreted out from the text? Forgive my skepticism. Your track record with reading comprehension isn't an endorsement for it.
The article showed a series of simpler mousetraps as the device went from 5 to 4 to 3 to 2 to 1 part
Disagree that Behe was correct, but you didn't specify in exactly which way, so I'm assuming you mean the claim that a mousetrap has no use missing one of its parts. Behe's claim was also falsified by Miller, but by using simpler mouse traps for another purpose such as a tie clip.
The article contradicts that. No new parts were added. Some older parts changed configuration, which is also the case with biological systems when a piece is removed or modified. The conformation of proteins, for example, is sensitive to their milieu. Remove one protein and the others conformation and functionality might change. Here's some biochemistry for you:
"This overview provides an illustrated, comprehensive survey of some commonly observed protein‐fold families and structural motifs, chosen for their functional significance. It opens with descriptions and definitions of the various elements of protein structure and associated terminology."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7162418/#:~:text=The complete structure of a,, tertiary, and quaternary structure.
If that's your main point, it's irrelevant to a biological system. How the mousetrap increases in complexity is unrelated to natural genetic variation.
I think you're misunderstanding the significance of the mousetrap. Your statement is irrelevant. It doesn't evolve by natural selection of a biological genotype/phenotype, and nobody claims that it did. It is merely a means of illustrating that when parts are removed, functionality is lost whether a system is biological or manmade.
Unselectable? The steps were selected by its builder, which is also irrelevant to a discussion of biological evolution.
