What part of 'irreducible' don't you understand? If you want to redefine words at your convenience, perhaps you should join the Clintonoids over on DU?
In fact, that there are exceptions to almost any rule in the organism is indeed a sign of the complexity which cannot be accounted for by any materialist explanation.
BWAHAHAHA!. So when every part is necessary to the whole, that's a sign of ID, and when it turns out that every part is not necessary to the whole, that's a sign of ID too! Well, that's an irrefutable argument. You've got me there.
That's it, Mr. 'I know how to change the font colors on html, that's as good as a Ph.D. any day'. I don't know what I expected when I decided to start repling again to your hysterically funny posts, but I got a real jewel of creationist logic as a reward. I'm off to Vegas for the weekend to study a priori probabilities some more. BYE!
Again you keep mistating what I said. I did not say that you cannot take out functions. I said that you cannot ADD functions. This is what evolution requires. Show me how new functions can be added. Let's see some examples of new functions found experimentally in the numerous experiments done in labs. You have none. The reason is that every single function requires more than one mutation for it to be possible. You cannot add complexity to an already complex organism at random. You cannot add code to a program at random. Living organisms are a program which cannot be changed at random.