[aruanan]

even though their flagship structure of “irreducible complexity” was found to be completely reducible to a type II [sic] secretory system.

The "completely reducible" consisted of an argument of this sort: "We need A, B, and C. So imagine that this protein got duplicated a number of times and became A and then this other thing was produced and altered in several different steps and came to be B, and this other thing was altered and became C. Now we have A, B, and C. Case closed." The problem is that the exercise in "complete reducibility" was nothing more than a molecular biological version of the evolutionary just-so story akin to breathlessly announcing that a complete arsenal of firearms and bladed weapons was inherent in a Mercedes Benz because we could describe in a stepwise fashion how the parts of one could be transformed into the inventory of the other.

[allmendream]

Not even close.

The specific claim of “irreducible complexity” was that each and every part was not “reducible” to a less complex but still functional part.

Obviously this breaks down if the major feature of a flagellum is also used in a type II secretory system.

The flagellum is most certainly complex, but only in Behe’s imagination was it ever “irreducible”.

But as usual, when a “cdesign proponentists” argument breaks down they move the goal posts.