I didn't source it out of laziness plus this is a post on the internet, not some kind of scientific dissertation for a thesis in college.
Nevertheless, this forum insists that forum members cite their sources.
As has been pointed out numerous times, the notion of "irreducible complexity by removal of parts" is a red herring. Cells are not built up like Lego models from raw materials like that. In mitosis, the daughter cells contain every structure that the parent did; and as already noted, that a body may cease to function by way of removal of a structure does not entail that it had no simpler ancestor. "Simpler" does not mean "one fewer structure". That's the faulty premise in the entire IC argument; and one which, despite the multitude of posts on this subject, you continue to miss (or, perhaps, deliberately ignore in order to prolong an argument well past its sell-by date; in which case, all you're doing is attention-seeking and the best thing for everyone else to do, perhaps, is to stop engaging with you).
Well I think you are missing the point of IC. It isn't just about removing 1 structure, it is the remaining parts then have no function. Simpler means a slight decrease in the same function as the final system, less efficient or less effective. Nature needs a function to select that is advantageous for survival and there should be a gradual buildup in this function to the final system we call IC. The IC system only becomes an advantage to the lifeform when all the various parts are there and able to interact with each other, and only then could it be selected by nature. Darwin understood IC would break down his theory.
We are going around in circles.
Firstly, I understand what the notion of IC is. I misspoke when I said "irreducible complexity by removal of parts"; I meant to say "irreducibly complexity as total loss of functionality
by removal of parts". Brain ran ahead of typing fingers. It happens sometimes.
And when I used the term "simpler" I am referring of course to an ancestor organism
that is in some way less functional. "Slight decrease in the same function", in the case of one function, may be one value of "simpler" as far as the organism is concerned, but it is not the only one.
That's the thing. Systems are part of organisms, which can include features that are no longer required due to an improvement in a system that previously required it. It is the organisms
that evolve, not specific systems. The improved system may look
IC if you discount the now-redundant feature, but it does not in fact fail to have a precursor, so the central argument of IC - that an IC system could have no precursor in nature - fails, and IC is a red herring argument from start to finish.
We've already done this, and I illustrated it with a simple simulation, but that was the post you decided to ignore.
What Darwin understood was that systems that could not have a precursor in nature
would break his theory. Despite the claims of IC, it does not establish what it claims to establish - and it's not even established that any given system is irreducibly complex.