Complexity is not an arguement for design. Snowflakes are comlicated structures and no two are identical, but their formation is governed strictly by the chemical and thermodynamic characteristics of water. Therefore complexity does not prove design.
Also, specific research would need to be conducted to explore each instance of interdependence, but I'' briefly dissect the flagellum argument popularized by Behe.
THere has been research that traces the genetic history of such a biological structure. THe complexity argument that leaving out a componenet makes it non functional is a red herring. Such an argument fails to consider that an efficient structure like the flagellum evolved from a less complicated one. In reality, evidence shows that the flagellum evoultion comes from a more complicated structure where parts are removed to give the final structure. It's like building an arch. You need a support structure around it before the arch can be completed. You can't simply build it by straight addition of components. COmponents must be reomved to get the final structure.
There is a lot of research and understanding on these subfields of evolution and it would be good for your to review them. Much of this has been addressed by people more knowledgeable than I on the deep parts of evolution.
I didn't say it was. I said it was an argument against random mutation and natural selection. Design isn't the only alternative. And, for the record, the stickers which are the subject of this thread say nothing about design.
Therefore complexity does not prove design.
A mischaracterization of the argument from complexity, which I can only assume is deliberate.