Theoretical physics shows "irreducible complexity" arguments invalid.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Look, you presented the irreducible complexity argument, and have yet to given an example of irreducibly complex organisms that could only have been intelligently designed by God.

This is quickly developing into a Hand Banana argument, ignoring how modern bananas were human cultivated as produce.

Negative Rampant....I did not present the irreducible complexity argument.

I did two things.

1)I challenged your accusation that theoretical physics renders all irreducible complexity arguments invalid.

No, you merely sidestepped, and provided a laboratory experiment as a red herring, after you yourself defined Irreducibly Complex arguments:

Irreducible complexity is the name given to the argument that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring, chance mutations. It is a bad name choice because even if humans were intelligently designed by God, they could still be reducible.

You claimed to have a litany of such arguments to present, showing irreducible complexity. When asked to present one, you offered the equivalent of "Coke cans do not appear in nature, and are therefore intelligently designed: Therefore cans of Coke are evidence of Intelligent Design."

More semantic sleight of hand, not a single irreducibly complex argument I n the way you define it to be seen.

2)I backed my challenge by showing irreducible complexity exists in some biological systems.

Yes. In organisms modified in a laboratory, but not in the way you defined irreducible complexity arguments.