Now THAT is a non-sequitur!
No, it isn't. IC specifically states, and I quote, "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. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution." (Behe, Darwin's Black Box, p. 39)
That we observe precursor systems, variations, and evolution of IC systems invalidates IC. Since specified complexity proposes that these complex systems are specified in advance, there cannot be an evolutionary pathway nor should they be selectable for other functions, in that they are *specified* for specific functions. That we can show evolutionary pathways and observe evolution of complex biochemical systems invalidates IC AND CSI. Since these are *crucial* components of positive evidence for ID, the *entire* theory collapses.