What part of that confused mix of italics and underlines convinced you that mindless preadaption, invisible as it is to Darwin’s natural selection god, is somehow a better explanation for the existence of these supersophisticated bio-nano machines than Creation/ID?
.No matter how many times you repeat “it is too complicated for me to understand, so that proves that God did it” is not and never will be science.
It seems that you failed to notice this little example of quote mining:
Neutral evolution falls outside the descriptions of Charles Darwin. But once the pieces gather, mutation and natural selection can take care of the rest, ultimately resulting in the now-complex form of TIM23.
Might I suggest that in addition to a much needed course in remedial science, you might want to include a class in reading comprehension?
Can't you just once make a statement or observation without including an inflammatory or insulting inclusion? Vilifying Charles Darwin, or any other person who see some validity in scientific investigation does not make you closer to the god you profess to defend.
For the record, nothing in the article refutes the concept of "irreducibly complex", it only seeks to shift the threshold.