Like genes that may be 'turned on' later.(as puberty, menopause, etc.), so if it may have been with the first cell made billions of years ago, awaiting being 'turning on' later into irreducibly complex systems.

Such systems under evolution could not have existed, because evolution would have gotten rid of these 'useless' cells long before they had a chance to act.

Evolutionists in the past had claimed 'selectional advantage' due to what they assumed was a mutation enabling genes to be responsive to changes of phenotype. They felt natural selection favored a physiological mechanism that allowed learned characteristics to be passed genetically to offspring. Like so much of this type of thinking, it was a lot of bunk.

Evolutionists assume natural selection to be true, yet fail to explain any intelligence behind the 'natural' part of the natural selection phrase.(other than the ridiculous.concept of randomness, the 'intelligent magic' of natural selection somehow acting upon random mutations toward modification of a species).

Evolution alleges that this enables it to be 'selective'. 
   Evolution proceeds from this starting point with descriptions of how timed and reactive changes programmed into things by Creator-God can be attributed to evolution. It's the same attitude a coworker may have who attempts to attribute your hard work to their credit. It's an outcrop of the ancients of the same attitude:.Jeremiah 44:16,17; Romans 1:28.

Jeffrey S. Wicken, Biochemistry Department, Behrend College, Pennsylvania State University, USA, 'The generation of complexity in evolution: a thermodynamic and information theoretical discussion',.Journal of Theoretical Biology, vol. 77, April 1979, pp. 351-352.."In spite of these conceptual problems connected with natural selection as an evaluative principle, the most serious deficiencies in neo-Darwinism.(new or modern day Darwinism; the hijacked one).relate to its 'generative'.aspect. As a generative principle, providing the raw material for natural selection, random.mutation is inadequate both in scope and theoretical grounding. It provides little insight into the creative, anamorphic character of evolution or into the problem of 'origins'.alluded to previously."

Dr. Colin Patterson, on the subject of 'cladistics', in an interview on British Broadcasting Corporation.(BBC).television, March 4, 1982."There is no doubt that natural selection is a mechanism, that it works.(how?). It has been repeatedly demonstrated by experiment. There is no doubt at all that it works. But the question of whether it produces new species is quite another matter. No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has ever gotten near it and most of the current argument in neo-Darwinism is about this question: how a species originates and it is there that natural selection seems to be fading out and chance mechanisms of one sort or another are being invoked."

Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University, 'The return of hopeful monsters',.Natural History, vol. LXXXVI (6), June, July 1977, p. 28."The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that natural selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well."

.