I do not have to explain irreducible complexity to you, because, in the world of living things, there is no such phenomenon. Again, you betray a complete (and possibly deliberate) misunderstanding of evolution. The bogus notion of irreducible complexity is no more than a facile attempt to run evolution backwards. Well you can't do that because evolution has no forwards. No goals, no acme of perfection to seek. Any example of irreducible complexity you wish to claim can be refuted by recourse to many examples of "simpler" structures representing a whole range of evolutionary steps. They all work perfectly well for the organism in question and in no way represent faltering steps along the way to some kind of finished article. What you're utterly failing, possibly disingenuously, to get your head round is the vast length of time natural selection has had to accumulate changes. Not only that, there is plenty of evidence that components which have one function can not only be adapted for other functions but can also be combined with other components to provide an improved or a novel function (the oft-quoted example of the flagellum, for example, a famous bogus example of irreducible complexity). Once again, I can suggest a good book, published in 1859. I especially refer you to Chapter 6, in which Darwin deals, frankly and elegantly, with the alleged irreducible complexity of the eye. He ends with a diplomatic little dig at irreducible complexity merchants' rather presumptious attitude toward their own alleged Creator. Nice one, Charles. But being nice didn't work. There are still clods around, even in 2013, who are so obsessed with religion and the idea that it's impossible for God not have created absolutely everything that they just won't listen to evidence. And they wonder why some of us get so annoyed.