Yep, and Darwin himself anticipated the idea of "irreducible complexity" (although he didn't call it that) and explained how systems where all parts are required could be assembled in stepwise fashion. The concept doesn't imply what Behe claimed for it, and none of the specific examples do what he claimed they do. The whole idea of "irreducible complexity," at least in terms of it being "irreducible," has fallen flat. Not a thing has come of it.
And yet, even though this failed idea was Behe's only particular (if historically unorginal) contribution to the movement, in the bizarre world of Intelligent Design he still remains a celebrity.
The word "accruing" is irreduciblly complex in English, at least by Behe's methods. One cannot drop any part (except the "g" in some Upper Tier English Society or a few American Dialects.) Thus the word cannot accrue from accrue which in itself is irreducibly complex. Behe hasn't allowed enough transformations.
That's simply hilarious. I've witnessed debates including the major proponents of Darwinism and Intelligent design, and the ID folks (and especially Behe) raised points that the Darwinists were so utterly incapable of rebutting that they instead took your strategy and simply ridiculed what they did not understand (or, as likely, understood but could not rebut).
If you want to debate specifics of irreducible complexity or the chromosomal barrier, I'll be more than happy to disabuse you of your errant philosophy. I suspect that you are utterly unqualified to debate any of these points, but your uninformed dismissal of ID is duly noted.