Hossjer: Using statistical methods to model the fine-tuning of molecular machines and systems

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

Seems like they are using the Irreducible Complexity argument, calling it endearingly a Behe-system.

A Behe-system of irreducible complexity was mentioned in Section 3. It is composed of several well-matched, interacting modules that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the modules causes the system to effectively cease functioning.

But Which Irreducible Complexity? - #7 by swamidass Seems to be IC1:

@Irreducible Complexity: the Mullerian Insights - 100 yrs ago!

IC1 – one way to objectively measure the complexity of any system, including biochemical systems, independent of the inference whether or not a specific level of complexity is evolvable.

However, Behe backed off this definition of IC, noting:

While thinking of Keith Robison’s scenario, I was struck that irreducible complexity could be better formulated in evolutionary terms by focusing on a proposed pathway , and on whether each step that would be necessary to build a certain system using that pathway was selected or unselected.
In Defense of the Irreducibility of the Blood Clotting Cascade | Discovery Institute

To which he proposed, IC2:

@swamidass

An irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway is one that contains one or more unselected steps (that is, one or more necessary-but-unselected mutations). The degree of irreducible complexity is the number of unselected steps in the pathway.
http://www.discovery.org/a/442

That’s notable, then, that this paper is not using Behe’s most up to date version of IC, and doesn’t recognize that Behe concedes that IC-systems can evolve.