http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?program=CSC&command=view&id=54%20
Do you even *read* these things before you link them, or do you just like pasting things in that don't actually support what you are being asked to support?
First, I asked you for a *conclusive* demonstration of "irreducibly complex biochemical systems". That article provides no such conclusive demonstration, nor does it claim to.
Second, even if we drop the "conclusive" requirement, it still fails to identify any biochemical systems which are actually "irreducibly complex" (although it *tries* to, it fails).
The two systems that article puts forth as possible "IC" systems are:
1. The flagellum. The flaws in this example were thoroughly addressed in post #34, which you apparently didn't read before you blew it off with snarky personal insults.
2. The intracellular protein transport system. This one's hilarious, since Behe refutes his own assertion in a single sentence: "Virtually all components of the transport system are necessary for the system to operate, and therefore the system is irreducible." Exsqueeze me? "Virtually" all components are necessary? Sorry, Behe, thanks for playing, we have some lovely parting gifts for you. By Behe's *own* definition of "IC" (which is itself flawed for reasons explained in post #34), *ALL* the components need to be "necessary for the system to operate". Not some, not most, not "virtually all", *ALL*. "Virtually all" just doesn't cut it:
By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.If "virtually all" of the components are indispensible, but not "all" without qualifier, then clearly at least one component is redundant, and can be removed without causing the system to "effectively cease functioning", and thus by Behe's own definition the transport system IS NOT Irreducibly Complex. QED.
-- Michael Behe, "Darwin's Black Box", p. 39
It's a tribute to Behe's sloppy thinking that he doesn't even notice how obviously he has contradicted himself here.
So, sorry, your link doesn't support your claim. Care to try again?