Joined: Mar. 2005
I'm not a biologist either, but "IC" strikes me as a case of "jumping to confusions". Really, what it says is that if one removes a critical part of a system from that system, said system will then cease doing its job? Both obvious and irrelevant to the argument.
After all (imnsho), evolution will tend to drop redundant parts, since their manufacture uses energy and materials that could be used for other things. And if one drops redundant parts, what's left? Critical parts, that's what.
Therefore, as near as I can tell, both models predicts that "IC" will occur in at least some cases. Therefore the concept is useless in distinguishing between them.
If I missed something in the above, could one of the resident biologists point it out?