I must be missing something here. I don't understand this metaphor at all.
yeah, I was sort of jokeing around, the point I was trying to make is if you have a existing system that does something, adding a new part to it might not only add to it's complexity but also totally change what that system is and does. lets try another example, would you say a mouse trap is irreducibly complex? if you remove the wooden back board, the spring, the catch, the trigger, or the little arm of death, it will not work as a mouse trap. correct? well lets say you remove the catch, the metal thingy that holds down the arm down by getting stuck under the trigger. well as stated the trap will no longer function as a trap, however it would make for an exalent paper clip, you just lift up on the arm put the paper in and let go, the spring would hold the arm don and the paper would remain quite bound. and as you can see the jump from this stile of paper clip to the mouse trap is not very far at all.
so the point about irriducable complexity being BS is that, just because a system will cease to function if one part is removed does not mean that the system without a particular part can not function as something else. the issue is further clouded by things like the parts changing to better suit there new roles, perhaps several different parts merging into one part and becoming something totally unrecognizable.
