I'm offended by Islam

[Gooders1002]

---

When you say that you've read/watched/etc material pertaining to irreducible complexity, does this include arguments that specifically dismantle such claims? I'm not sure how it can appear one way or the other if you've engaged the arguments honestly. I'm sure that your example of irreducible complexity isn't as mundane as the old "human eye" argument, right? What examples (you needn't justify them if you don't wish) in biology do you perceive as being irreducibly complex?

It has nothing to do with saying "it's super complex...therefore it can't be reduced to simplicity".

Let's take the eye example. Let's work with that. There is so many steps in nature, and evolutionist say, look at these steps (which I believe ARE steps) and say, evolution happened with a bunch of even smaller steps....with a bunch of even smaller steps. To me, when you get really small, it doesn't simply work. Or doesn't appear to work because of lack of direction towards that by blind forces.

I researched into the eye, and I found both sides intelligent design fundies and those who refute it, don't understand Michael Behe's perspective, who is the founder of irreducible complexity.

If you want to know more about his view, you can see this video for starters:

---

He also believes in common descent and that all organism come from common descent. It's whether the mechanism can be purely Darwinian, that he disputes.

---

Some points to, is that he doesn't believe majority of mutations are controlled (designed), the majority of mutations can very well be random...just some design happens in nature time to time.

I say if this is true, perhaps X - Men powers is very possible in the future for us humans

---

I don't know why you call it Darwinian evolution, is beyond me. Darwin may have first discovered it and submitted it but that is 1000's if sciences in all disciplines that confirm its validity, that aside.

The Eye yes evolved in steps with a mutation that helped it detects light, and so on and so forth until we have the Eyes of today. You must remember all life came from very simple organisms and that this mutation would happen and if it was nutrel or benefited the organism in its environment it stayed and if it was harmful it was removed. So the Theory can be applied to anything that changes over time even smart phones have 'evolved' (though this was purely human refinement) I think you miss the point it happens very slowly over a long period of time.
And you starting at the wrong end. Of course it would be impossible for that to be created from random if it suddenly popped into existence. but if you start with the building blocks you can get very, almost impossably complex structures.
Evolution in animals is almost like LEGO, you start with one block and you slowly add and shape and work out the most effance design purly though trial and error but you really have no goal so the possibilities are endless.
So back to the eye, there were no need for eyes but as time when on in one environment (one with light) creaters that could see would have a advantage over the others in the day time. you have to look at it small and simple to big and complexe or yes it would not make sence.
And who every said that for something to happen you needed a goal?
It is all down to what would benefit the organism the most and a light sensing dot on a ammba or something like that could be the diffenance between when to come out to eat and when photosynaise (not saying there is a creature like that but it is possible).