[<1/1,000,000th%]

The title of this article says systems are still irreducibly complex, even if they're made up of perfectly functioning sub-systems.

I assume you'll say they're irreducibly complex too. Then we'll go right down through molecules to atoms to quarks.

It's irreducible complexity all the way down.

It's just as I stated in my post you originally responded to, everything's irreducibly complex. The term doesn't mean anything.

[Last Visible Dog]

The title of this article says systems are still irreducibly complex, even if they're made up of perfectly functioning sub-systems.

No it does not. Like I said, you seem to be a wee bit reading-challenged. The titles says:

"Irreducible Complexity is an Obstacle to Darwinism Even if Parts of a System have other Functions"

Nobody is claiming anything about "sub-systems" nor has there been any mention of "perfectly functioning sub-systems"

HINT: The opposition to IC claims that some PARTS of the systems have other purposes.

[Last Visible Dog]

It's just as I stated in my post you originally responded to, everything's irreducibly complex. The term doesn't mean anything.

Repeating unsupported gibberish does not make it any less unsupported gibberish. Nobody has claimed everything is irreducibly complex (except you and you have provided no supporting evidence for your claim).