You must be deliberately misunderstanding me Steve to avoid showing up the flaw in your logic. The analogy of the financial system was not to explain biological evolution, it was to explain how religionists are using the flawed concept of irreducible complexity by applying it selectively only to biological systems and not also to financial systems.. Because if it was correct then you'd have to also argue that banks popped into existence all at once. It's a form of special pleading on your part.
Either different parts of a complex system can grow reliant on each other over time, in which case we can have banks and complex organs, or they don't in which case banks do not exist.
Either different parts of a complex system can grow reliant on each other over time, in which case we can have banks and complex organs, or they don't in which case banks do not exist.
