That's not evidence, it's an assertion. Support it, and we can talk.
This is not evidence. THis is an arguement that lacks evidence. Sure, there are biochemical pathways that need all components to function. However, by studying the proteins and genetics involved, these pathways can be shown to be similar to other pathways in other organisms. A more complete picture is built this way and the subtractive nature of apparent complexity can be demonstrated. In other words, the IDers presume such pathways could not have evolved by adding what they call complexity. The IDer's ignore that you could have a more complicated, less efficient pathway that lost components to produce the observed, simplified pathway they use as examples. No waving of the hands to dismiss your argument. Simple observation of facts does that.