Donald: <<A brick archway doesn't have to support anything while it is being built,
in fact it has to be supported. If it was unsupported and not finished and
you stood on it, I don't think it would work very well. This is more like
how it is in nature. And that by itself lays to rest you argument.>>
Perhaps I fail to understand your argument as it implies to prove what I was trying to say. The fact that the end product is 'irreducibly complex' does not mean that the preceding steps were all such. So we have an example of something that is irreducibly complex in the end but not in the intermediate steps leading up to it.
Sounds as if Behe's argument that irreducibly complex systems could not have 'evolved' gradually is shown lacking in logic. Behe's observation that removing one component leads to a break-down does not prove that it could not have gotten there gradually. Only now the scaffolding and supports are gone and removing the piece will lead to a collapse. Bring back the scaffolding and supports and the piece can be removed again. And what appeared to indicate that it could not have gotten there in small steps collapses as well. If your argument is that it did not support anything while being built then I am sure we could find a more satisfying example. The end results are still the same. Furthermore, why should it have supported anything ? It is not self evident that what its present function is now, was its present function in the past.
Too many problems with Behe's circular argument