The argument from irreducible complexity fails

My opponent did not present a syllogism, though did present evidence. As such, to simplify the debate, I'm going to post an explanation of irreducible complexity:"Irreducible complexity is an aspect of the Intelligent Design Theory that argues some biological systems are so complex and so dependent upon multiple complex parts, that they could not have evolved by chance."[1]P1 - Biological creatures arise from either chance, evolution or intelligent designP2 - Irreducible complexity means something cannot have arose by chance or evolutionC1 - Thus, there must be intelligent designObservationsObservations are what we recognise at first glance of the motionposed.The first observation is that this is an empirical argument. The claims are based on a posteriori evidence from the world. However, it is not scientific. This is because it does not fit the scientific method of being an experiment that can be tested and repeated: instead, it is analysis and interpretation of evidence. Ironically, if it can be repeated, it is scientific and in favour of evolution. This is because observing the irreducibly complex not arise is not evidence of anything, but observing the supposedly irreducibly complex arise from nature is evidence of evolution. The second observation is the incredible burden created. To quote my opponent: "the evolutionist must prove nothing has irreducible complexity, while the non-evolutionist must prove there is but one organism that has". Clearly, there are many cases which are supposedly "intelligently designed", such as the eye[2] claimed by intelligent design proponents, but later shown how the evolution took place[3], or the evolution of blood clots been deemed impossible, as my opponent states, yet later on the evolution has been made clear by Ken Miller [4][video, 39 minutes in]. However, there are still hundreds, if not thousands, of examples that can be posed.The third observation is that my opponent has claimed that the respiratory system includes the digestive system...also that there have already been given 4 examples (my one and opponent's 3) of irreducible complexity. If this is a sign of things to come, I would be worried.Contention One: examples of irreducible complexity existI've already given evidence against blood clotting being irreducible complexity, but I'll go through the others. The famous example of the Flagellum is famous firstly because it is a 'poster boy' of intelligent design, but also the ease of how it has been rebutted by the evolutionary biologists that came across it. Indeed, it was addressed before Behe came on the scene with it as an example. The strongest evidence of the evolution of the flagellum, however, is the findings of Matzke, who discovered how the flagella could have evolved - and indeed the evidence supports it. However, it is a complex issue, especially for a debate, so I'll produce a basic understanding of the evolution that anyone can access (any explanation which resorts to words like "extracellular" aren't good explanations in my eyes). Also, I'll anthropomorphise slightly, so I will say "feed" for example to make concepts simpler.Firstly, imagine the basic membrane: There is the outer membrane, the cell wall, and the cytoplasmic or "inner" membrane. Now, the cell needs to feed, of course. It eats proteins. These proteins go through the cell wall and the cytoplasmic membrane. Now, there needs to be a way to get in the cell. This is a passive pore. It allows protein in. Then of course some things that get in won't be useful and indeed instead harmful. So a filter will appear (no picture unfortunately) to select proteins. After this, an ATP synthase (a type of enzyme, well established to evolve naturally[5]) This creates active transport - meaning food can be brought into the system. Before, it simply have to luck its way up, or be pushed through by other protein, etc. At this point, we get a Type 3 export apparatus, This occurs similarly on the other side of an organism to create a secretion system, which allows protein to move outside of the cell - too much protein, or clogging, or any number of reasons makes this useful. Add the tube on, and you get this: A type 3 secretion system. To review, here's a step-by-step: Now, when we compare it to the flagella: I se a lot of symbols that intimidate us, like "FliT" and "FlhA" etc. but notice how similar the two are. I can go on with the example, but this is a clear walkthrough of the evolution of the flagellum to a meaningful stage. If needed, I can continue, but the homologous nature is clear.The respiratory systemThis is a complex one. The long explanation is a combination of the evolution of lungs to increase surface area diffusion, circulatory system to distribute the oxygen gained and finally the evolution of efficient ventilation, each of which evolves separately. The full explanation can be found here[6] but I can walk through any confusing parts if needs be (though I lack the ability to explain it all due to constraints in characters). The short explanation is respiration starts with simple diffusion: no need for any actual system at all. Then it is just an increase of efficiency. This is no more strange an evolution than going from stumps to fingers: it is just making life easier. Remember: we should not be thinking of trying to go from complex to simple, but from simple to complex. Contention 2: Irreducible Complexity is intellectually ignorantI choose my words carefully here: irreducible complexity is a pointless endless road of proof and rebuff. Go back to the second observation: there are countless supposed examples, each of which are rebutted yet two more fill its place. Many describe irreducible complexity as akin to the Hydra: you may think you've slain it, but it just grows more heads in its place. As long as the argument's base has credence - as long as we don't go after the belly of the beast - it simply regrows. It does not win, but takes up all of our time with new examples. There are quite literally an infinite number of them. "As an example, one might consider the question of how left-right asymmetry arises in vertebrate development, a question that was beyond explanation until the 1990s. In 1990 one might have argued that the body's left-right asymmetry could just as well be explained by the intervention of a designer as by an unknown molecular mechanism. Only a decade later, the actual molecular mechanism was identified, and any claim one might have made for the intervention of a designer would have been discarded. The same point can be made, of course, regarding any structure or mechanism whose origins are not yet understood"[7]On the one front, it is an argument from ignorance: it looks at things that seem irreducibly complex, and claims that there then is no explanation of the thing in question. On the other front, it leads us to an endless road of proof and disproof. A proponent of irreducible complexity comes up with a new example, thus proving intelligent design. But now they are on their toes, worried and scared for a simple disproof of their theory in the shape of a single coherent contending idea. Evolutionism does the same, on its toes jumping at the next possible example to disprove. It does not prove, but simply makes the proof of God dependent on who has the upper hand.Contention Three: Irreducible Complexity tells us nothing of anythingI shall elaborate on this next round, but simply can know nothing of the designer if irreducible complexity is true. 1 - http://www.gotquestions.org...2 - http://darwin-online.org.uk...;3 - http://www.pbs.org...;4 - http://www.youtube.com...;5 - http://en.wikipedia.org...6 - http://cwx.prenhall.com...7 - http://www.millerandlevine.com...