Evolution is most likely a part of intelligent design

I’m struggling with the concept of irreducible complexity as you allude to it, so you need to help me out here a little. In Message 55 Sour has posted a link to the experiments in question and I’m pretty confused. I just don’t get the irreducible complexity bit.My basic understanding of evolution is that if you have a naturally occurring complex mechanism, you might want to label it x. Evolution suggests that it will have arisen as a result of a mutation (and natural selection) from a different (but most likely similar) mechanism which can be labelled (x - 1) . which in turn has arisen out of mechanism (x - 2) etc, all the way back to (x - y), being the earliest single cell structures or whatever.At this point the ID lobby wants to step in and say if we can’t find an (x - 1) or (x - 2) etc for any mechanism x, we can deduce that it cannot have evolved so is therefore the result of ID.What I’m struggling with is the idea that the aforementioned amplifier is in any way irreducibly complex. Complex yes, irreducible no. According to the report, it took 4,100 ”mutations’ to reach the ”complexity’ required to carry out the task. Each of these mutations is a step on the evolutionary path that leads from (x - y) to x, so fails to match the criteria required by the IDists in their search for irreducible complexity.What am I missing?

Cheers RAZD. I was actually reading your thread the other day, and immediately realised my understanding of IC was incomplete (and flawed).But I wouldn’t be me if I didn’t have just one more questionIn the FPGA experiment, it was concluded that the process led to a functional amplifier by the 4,100th mutation. I now understand that if we remove one element of this amplifier, it fails to function. Well, as an amplifier at least . and that we (as humans) can detect no function in what remains.But I’m not sure how relevant that is. To the best of my understanding, in ToE, nature determines what will survive (and therefore has function), not little old me.I’m going to have to take some time to go through your other thread in more detail and try to get my head round all the biological stuff. In the meantime, where have I gone wrong with the above?Thanks.