What is science?

I don't agree (on the IC part). Reproduction can be reduced to DNA replication, which at it's heart is a chemical reaction. Taking apart a bacterium as we see it today gives the appearance of being IC, but most of the processes that are included could have evolved to aid DNA replication, and thus reproduction.

You are absolutely incorrect: DNA can replicate outside of a cell - it's happening in my lab right now. It also doesn't require "proteins" to replicate - it only requires a single "protein" to efficiently replicate.I'm sure you can argue that it wouldn't happen outside of the lab - but I don't believe that either you or I can discuss the probability of minimal cell-free replicating systems (possibly solely RNA-based) existing in a 'primordial soup'. (Though I'm guessing your answer would be zero...)As far as my assertion that bacterial reproduction is not IC - DNA replication is a process within bacterial reproduction that can occur without the rest of the bacterium - therefore the bacterial reproduction itself is not IC by (my) definition. I did read the article you referenced - no matter how long it discusses cell division, it remains that DNA replication can occur without it - it does in fact, to form polyploid cells and syncytia (both are in your body right now).If there was an seemingly unasserted statement on my part, it was: with DNA replication at the core of a hypothetical minimal system, and with DNA changes at the heart of evolution - evolution can occur in that system. Hypothetical. Though, in line with evolutionary thought, I believe.Oh. By the way - humans do not "design" their babies; you should know that since you reference all of the IC in life - if we can't understand the complexity, how can we design it? I'd give you more arguments, but that would be beating a dead horse.