Theoretical physics shows "irreducible complexity" arguments invalid.

[Heywood]

Oh come on, you're equivocating two entirely unrelated concepts, when you yourself stated what the "irreducible complexity" argument ACTUALLY states:

Irreducible complexity
Irreducible complexity (IC) is an argument by proponents of intelligent design 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.
Irreducible complexity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your definition:

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.

And the first example you throw out is the "irreducible complexity of the eye"?

Really? Go back one page, note the reference to how that "argument" was refuted two decades ago.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/librar...11_01.html

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

http://m.wimp.com/eyeevolution/

http://www.nyas.org/publications/detail....79a061fff7

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary...le/eyes_01

I said the eye evolved. If the eye was irreducibly complex then it could not have evolved. Irreducible complexity is a "theory" about how something is not made....not how it is made(which you seem to think is the case).