Irreducible Complexity 

A myth perpetrated by Creationists and IDiots alike (although they are the same people really). It states that certain bodily systems are "too complex" to have evolved over millions of years despite evidence to the contrary

Creationist IDiot: the human eye is irreducibly complex, it cannot have evolved

Scientist: we have found evidence to the contrary and have run simulations on primitive photosensitive cells which disprove irreducible complexity.

Creationist IDiot: the human eye is irreducibly complex, it cannot have evolved

Scientist: did you understand what i just told you?

Creationist IDiot: the human eye is irreducibly complex, it cannot have evolved

Scientist: I take it you either didn't understand that or you are just close minded towards evolution

Creationist IDiot: the human eye is irreducibly complex, it cannot have evolved

Scientist: ok I'm not dealing with you anymore

Creationist IDiot: We won! he cannot prove Evilution, WE WON!!!

Irreducible Complexity by person with at least half a br April 21, 2010

Irreducible Complexity 

This theory is a favorite of theists. It says that life is simply too complex to have developed via natural selection or random mutation. However...

- on July 11, 2002, scientists artificially re-created polio. Using only the DNA of the polio virus and a series of synthetic chemicals, they recreated the natural desire to reproduce, the ability to evolve, and all other mechanisms that make a virus, LIFE, work.

- the bacterial flagellum argument has also been disproven. Back in 1996, scientists found that the 10-part "Type 3 secretion mechanism" that pathogenic germs have is very similar in function to the bacterial flagellum, but does so with only 10 parts. Therefore, each supposedly "irreducible" mechanism is perfectly functional if you take away the RIGHT parts. It is still reducible.
- the Eye argument has also been disproven. All you need are some simple photo-receptive cells that just detect light. As the species ages, this mechanism becomes more and more useful as these traits develop into actual senses. Keep in mind that these mechanisms had countless opportunities to develop across countless species during the Cambrian Explosion 500 million years ago, and have been getting more and more complex over that amount of time.

Sorry for using science and fact, but keep in mind that if you make a claim, there's always someone willing to check your facts.

Complexity does NOT necessarily indicate design. Irreducible Complexity is BULLSHIT!

Irreducible Complexity by kjun1_3 February 25, 2011

Irreducible Complexity 

As has been stated, it is a favorite argument used amongst creationists to claim that some organic systems are too complex to have evolved as such.

In other words, it is the argument of "I don't understand how it works, therefore it's wrong."

Ironically, it can be used as an argument against God, too.

Creationist: "You can't explain how an eye evolved, it's too complex to have sprung up on its own. It's irreducible complexity."

Scientist: "Of course it can, you're just incapable of understanding the concept that it takes millions of years for features to evolve in to the things we see today."

Creationist: "Nuh-uhhhh."

Scientist: "Fine, please tell me exactly how your 'God' made the eye."

Creationist: "He made it in his own image."

Scientist: "How exactly did he do it, lay out the steps for me on the precise methods used."

Creationist: "I don't know...."

Scientist: "Thus, by your own logic, you've just disproved God. Fantastic job, let me buy you a beer."

Irreducible Complexity by dumaitisagain October 3, 2011