Theoretical physics shows "irreducible complexity" arguments invalid.

[Chas]

I have a clearer understanding than you do.

It is obvious that you are disingenuous.

Negative Chas,

You think that IC is an argument for God. It is not.

IC is simply the hypothesis 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.

Even if God does not exist, IC still can....and in fact does exist(as was trivially easy to show). The fact that human activity was responsible for the known unambiguous examples of IC....doesn't make IC magically go away. I'm afraid you're just going to have deal with it.

IC is here to stay.

Wrong. I simply claim that IC has not been shown to naturally occur.

You keep imputing things to me that I never said. Stop it.

And stop trying to redefine it. Behe invented the term.

By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution.