Evolution cannot account for irreducible complexity

Once again I have to defend myself against petty allegations. A Gish Gallop? Well, I have responded to exactly five arguments, two of my own, and three of GreenTeas. How could this create any illusion at all? I am trying to understand how IC systems can be evolved, and you"re trying to denigrate me. He claims I have provided no "logical or factual" responses. He also claims that I have "completely lied or misled readers." I encourage readers to check out our sources to collaborate this claims. [1] I will now defend my arguments. A. Bacteria Flagellum I now will defend my arguments. As in the blood clotting arguments, there is a certain limit to where the IC system goes. This is not "moving the goalposts" or any such contrivance. It is simple science. He quotes Behe"s summary of the function of the system, but does not note that this was not even part of the original proposed IC system! [2] As I said in the previous rounds, and as the source clearly testifies, the IC portion of the flagellum was noted WAY before the source came out. The studies did not in any way show that it was not IC. This is thus not shifting the goalposts. [3] I will allege here that you are using a straw man! [4] What is a straw man? A straw man is an argument that refutes something that looks like mine, but is not. Furthermore, I will allege that you have misrepresented Behe on the topic of bacteria flagellum. Your source 4 is a refutation of Miller, not an argument for an IC system! It notes the increasing knowledge of complexity, which is not necessarily IC, and you use it in support of your contentions! B. Blood Clotting Cascade The fact that you are unable to cite a particular sentence showing it still has a functional blood clotting system is remarkable! I read the study too, and find it, I did not! [5] The study uses the word "clotting" twice, both in reference to its lack! It states, "the absence of Fib restores the overall rate of wound healing in Plg−/− mice to normal." Let me make a memorable statement. Wound healing =/= Blood Clotting. Your whole contention rests on that. In fact, you are trying to use a source that does not support you to support you. I. Evolution by scaffolding GreenTeas has emphatically asserted that I am wrong that there is no benefit. What proof is there? None at all! Bare assertions does not convince me. You claim that B and D potentially have benefit. There is no evidence of this here. You claim that redundant phenotypes have benefit, and link to something on genetic redundancy! They are generally related, but in this case, they could not be more different. Furthermore, you have failed even to acknowledge my arguments against redundancy benefit. You use the example of backup to support your arguments. Evolution does not allow for this. It is the survival of the strongest, and the death of the weakest. I have not at all ignored this possibility. The energy used to create these parts would mean these organisms would lose out against their "normal" relatives. Note that your arguments does not refute mine. Also note that evolution does not take roundabout paths. It takes the most direct path. Thus, there would be parts A, C, and D from the start, but no B. Unless it is A, B, and C. This, as you have mentioned, is not as good as the former, and it would lose out. Notice, however, that the A-C-D combination is not in any way "sturdier." That is an illusion granted by the drawing. [6] Your argument is based on superfluity and evolution DOES NOT allow for that. Selective pressure ALWAYS exist. I have shown that selective pressure is AGAINST this phenotype. NOT for. II. Evolution by addition I did not cite that statement, not because I was wrong, but because I thought you knew about it already. [7] It was my assumption that you knew about enzymic activity. I was wrong. It is a well known fact that the rate of reaction is changed by the enzyme concentration (I assume you speak of enzymes because you said "catalyze") and substrate concentration [8]. I have already cited denaturation. Increased catalytic speed may be harmful, hence the large amount of regulatory DNA [9]. You have called my argument about the improbability of new phenotype formation a "straw man." Yet you have not provided any indication that B is not new. Furthermore, I have mentioned something that performed the function of B, the inhibitor, which I have cited. As I have shown, enzyme-inhibitor complexes are not IC systems and you cannot use them as such! You have not responded or even acknowledged the substance of my rebuttals. From one statement, you have considered all of mine false. Such is the attitude of one who cannot refute the other"s arguments. You have also source-bombed me. Sources do not make an argument, they support one. III. Evolution by co-option GreenTeas, you have made a straw man of my arguments. It is not because the words "irreducible complexity" is not found. It is simply because it does not fit into the definition of an IC system. You have no source 9, so I will assume that it is the same as the study from the previous round. Your source 15. I even helped you get a link for it. Besides the which, you state that the paper does state certain things. Which it does NOT state. I downloaded the work and read it in its entirety. It is three pages long. There is no evidence of it being an IC system, rather, it may be considered very close to an IC system. There is also no evidence that it evolved, actually. The paper states that it "probably" evolved. Extrapolating that to a certainty is simply twisting the source to fit your agenda. Conclusion Your three arguments has serious objections to which you did not respond. I request that you use your last argument round refuting my objections. I have indeed made logical and factual objections. In fact, I used your sources against you in that I showed that they did not support your contention. My two arguments have not been refuted. In one, you twisted the evidence to support your arguments. In the other, you shifted the IC system requirements beyond that originally proposed and declared that it was then not an IC system.