If a system can be shown to have evolved by a series of step changes (which is what the above demonstrates) then by definition it is NOT IC
Those who are attempting to push IC have been careful
not to define IC as "cannot evolve by a series of step changes". So your statement is wrong.
What they
have done is assume that IC systems, defined in various other ways, cannot evolve. So if they demonstrate that a system is IC by whatever definition they use, that leads to the
conclusion that is cannot have evolved.
Hall's experiments demonstrated that a system that is IC by Behe's original definition can evolve.
That's one reason Behe changed his definition to one for which it is impossible to figure out if a sytem is IC.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.