Theoretical physics shows "irreducible complexity" arguments invalid.

[Chas]

Which ones? Why do theists throw out statements like this without supporting them? Claims about "The eye being irreducibly complex" have been debunked decades ago, and theists still try to convince people they are.

The genome of Mycoplasma Laboratorium contains water marks that were designed by intellects which are of sufficient complexity that it would be unreasonable to ever think they evolved sans intellect.

The water marks contained in the genome of Mycoplasma Laboratorium are as follows:

watermark 1 an Html script which reads to a browser as text congratulating the decoder with an email link ([email protected]) to click to prove the decoding.

watermark 2 contains a list of authors and a quote from James Joyce: "To live to err, to fall, to triumph, to recreate life out of life".

watermark 3 contains more authors and a quote from Robert Oppenheimer (uncredited): "See things not as they are, but as they might be".

watermark 4 contains yet more authors and a quote from Richard Feynman: "What I cannot build, I cannot understand

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycoplasma_laboratorium

It's synthetic, man-made. You are conflating this with what is meant by irreducible complexity. Show something not man-made.

---

I did two things.

1)I challenged your accusation that theoretical physics renders all irreducible complexity arguments invalid.
2)I backed my challenge by showing irreducible complexity exists in some biological systems.

You did not succeed with #2. First, you dishonestly equate a man-made artifact with a natural one - the ones that IC actually refers to.

Second, you have not shown that those watermarks could not have occurred by natural processes.