Sorry, but I don't buy into the concept of "irreducible complexity". That's just a fancy way of saying, "it's impossible for it to have come about on its own"
- the same worthless argument you tried to use just a bit ago.
you don't buy it, because it does not fit your preconceived world view. Not, because the evidence does not lead in that direction. It actually does. And that quit clearly.
The only thing it accomplishes is to inspire scientists who disagree with it to demonstrate that it's wrong. Given their track record - such as finding out that the "irreducibly complex" bacterial flagellum was actually reducible and based on much simpler bacterial structures - I trust them a lot more than I trust Behe.
thats a pseudo scientific try to get out of the dilemman, but the problem of the flagellum has never really been solved. And as the flagellum, there are many other nano motors in the cell, that are irreducible complex, namely the atp sinthase, the kinesin motor proteins, the rybosome, chaperones, the Cotranslational protein translocation, translesion synthesis, hexameric helicases etc. Just to name a view. And in the same way, as in a car motor engine, if one part of the motor is missing, the whole engine will not work anymore, in the same way, if one of the organelles is missing, the whole cell will not work anymore.
For example :
Chemist John Walton noted the dilemma in 1977 when he stated:
"The origin of the genetic code presents formidable unsolved problems. The coded information in he nucleotide sequence is meaningless without the translation machinery, but the specification for his machinery is itself coded in the DNA. Thus without the machinery the information is meaningless, but without the coded information, the machinery cannot be produced. This presents a paradox of the 'chicken and egg' variety, and attempts to solve it have so far been sterile."
There is good evidence to suggest that the process of cell division is indeed irreducibly complex, for the steps involved are interdependent and highly coordinated. For example, crucial steps such as DNA transcription require proteins (see Figure 1)—while protein synthesis in turn is dependent upon transcription. Moreover, evidence suggests that the processes involved in cell division are highly regulated and coordinated in a sequential fashion. For instance, in bacteria, cytokinesis does not proceed until DNA replication is complete, so that the DNA is precisely partitioned into the developing daughter cells. Each process itself is complex and if any one of the processes is inhibited, cell division ceases. This interdependence fits the criteria of an irreducibly complex system.
Indeed it would seem that for any cell to function there needs to be not just proteins but, at the same time, these chaperone systems, which are absolutely essential for proper folding and maintenance of proteins. Without such systems, in place already, the cell will not function.
Replication must begin somewhere. Why not at the origin of replication with the formation of a replication fork. A prepriming complex of proteins forms. Included are DnaA proteins and single stranded binding proteins. Also involved are DNA helicases to separate the strands, DNA topoisomerases to respond to supercoils, DNA polymerase and DNA ligase.
Don't bother making semantic arguments about how to define irreducible complexity. There are multiple parts needed for function. The challenge lies in demonstrating the incremental evolution of these components.
I find the phenomenon of the DNA supercoiling problem and its biochemical solution even more compelling than examples like protein synthesis and the bacterial flagellum, since twisted ropes are familiar to everyone. This might make for another highly persuasive ID mascot.
How could random variation and natural selection come up with a pair of biochemical scissors and a repair mechanism that cuts and splices the twisted DNA molecule in order to relieve torsional tension? What would be the functional, naturally-selectable intermediate steps in a hypothetical stochastically generated evolutionary process? It is clear that there could not possibly be any.
Paul Nelson then elaborates that the construction of one irreducibly complex machine (like the flagellum) requires the work of other machines; and those machines require other machines for their assembly. The whole assembly apparatus is itself irreducibly complex. In a memorable line, Jonathan Wells says, "what we have here is irreducible complexity all the way down."
Scott A. Minnich is an associate professor of microbiology at the University of Idaho :
“Molecular machines display a key signature or hallmark of design, namely, irreducible complexity. In all irreducibly complex systems in which the cause of the system is known by experience or observation, intelligent design or engineering played a role in the origin of the system... We find such systems within living organisms.”