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.
Miller’s argument is that since a subset of the proteins of the flagellum can have a function of their own, then the flagellum is not IC and Darwinian evolution could produce it. That’s it! He doesn’t show how natural selection could do so; he doesn’t cite experiments showing that such a thing is possible; he doesn’t give a theoretical model. He just points to the greater-than-expected complexity of the flagellum (which Darwinists did not predict or expect) and declares that Darwinian processes could produce it. This is clearly not a fellow who wants to look into the topic too closely.
The authors is saying "finding a secondary purpose for SOME of the parts of an IC component does not explain how it could evolve using the Darwinian process"
If you believe otherwise, please explain how it could evolve using the Darwinian process. I know that might interrupt your Evo-Reactionary victory dance - but heck - give it a try.
So according to you, parts of a system with other functions aren't functioning systems. So you deny that these parts of systems that have functions are systems???
If you weren't so busy with your insults maybe you could write a coherent statement. I believe you're just ducking the whole issue.
Basically if there are no examples of irreducibly complex systems, you're still left with only a Designer, because that's where you started.