I'm not exactly sure what you mean (since this issue wasn't really brought up in this thread as a problem in the chart ” at least I don't think it was).
I did mention it briedly.
A system is considered to be IC if the removal of any one part would make it nonfunctional.
This means, say the IDers, that an IC system cannot evolve.
WRONG.
What they need to say to be accurate is that it can't have evolved in such a way that the last step in its evolution was the wholesale addition of a part.
Well, right. No, it can't have.
As an example of something not evolving that way, consider the three little bones in the mammal ear which conduct sound.
(1: incus; 2: stapes; 3: malleus.)
Remove one from the chain, and the system can't conduct sound. This is an IC system. And we know how it evolved from parts of the reptile jaw. We can see this in the fossil record, we can see the bones migrate in mammalian embryos, and we understand the process: how fish used their jaws just as jaws, how reptiles use the vibrations of their jawbones to pick up ground vibrations, and how we use them exclusively as transmitters of vibrations and not as jawbones, with the mammal-like reptiles coming between the reptiles and us mammals.
Any questions?