Irriducible Mouse Trap?

SHinrichs9@aol.com
Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:27:15 -0500 (EST)

This is my first post so this is just a practice. However, I do have
something to say about the mouse trap. If it is defined as just a mechanism
that produces at least a certain downward force that can be activated by a
mouse then their is a certain direct progression which can be proposed.

(# of crucial components in parenthesis)
4.1.2.2 Propped Gravity Trap (3)
4.1.2.3 Propped Fixed Beam Trap (4)
4.1.2.4 Propped Coiled Spring Traps
4.1.2.4.1 Propped Coiled Pull Fixed Spring Trap (5)
4.1.2.4.2 Propped Coiled Twist Spring Trap (6)
4.1.2.5 180 Degree Coiled Twist Spring Catch Trap
4.1.2.5.1 180 Degree Coiled Twist Spring Fixed Catch Trap (8)
4.1.2.5.2 180 Degree Coiled Twist Spring Pinned Catch Trap (9)

However, just because a progression requires no more than 3 new components
at a time does not mean the progression is plausible. The components of the
traps with fewer components have more requirements which may have competing
interest making the requirements more narrow and less probable of being
achieved by random. Also, in traps with more components there are
requirements for components to work together on a whole which also can
produce very narrow requirements.

Behe has discussed the 9 component trap. Robinson has attempt to dismiss it
by replacing the base with the floor. This is no big deal because the base is
flat and typically floors are too. The base is the component which has the
minimal amount of geomtrical requirements. All it has to do is
self-equilibrate the loads which can be accomplished by most any solid shape.
Thus, Robinson has intelligently selected the easiest component to replace.
None of the other components have such loose geometrical requirements.

Later, I hope to relate this limited analogy to biological systems.