See Post #5 and take this "irreducible complexity" one step further.
The sea anemone and the clownfish are two completely different species that function in a symbiotic relationship in nature.
The clownfish lives among the anemone's poisonous tentacles without any harm coming to it. The fish's presence helps the anemone attract other fish for food ... while the anemone's poison protects the fish from predators.
I'd love to have an evolutionist explain how this relationship between two types of genetically distinct aquatic species all unfolded in a natural process.
I look at this somewhat differently. As I see it, the primordial soup gave us physical life. God gave us spirituality and our souls. The environment gave us our mental capacity.
I call it the “Triangle of Life.” It’s only when all three are aligned can you be truly happy. This is why the left are in tatters. They lost their spirituality and their self induced environmental conditions are driving them mad. No amount of arugula and jogging can fix it.
when arguing irreducible complexity- one must be careful to argue that not all of the systems beign argued are made up of entirely irreducibly complex parts- soem do contain parts that could be doen away with and still function- Behe made the mistake of not clarifyign that his irreducible complexity theory was speaking ONLY about those CRITICAL parts of a system which could NOT be reduced without causing failure of the system
For instance- let’s argue that a car needs to move in order to thrive/live- (Basically to function as a means of locomotion ie do what it was created to do- move from one spot to another)- A car with wheels and rims system could lose one or a few lugnuts and the car could still move- but what it could not lose, are the rims- without the rims- the car wheels can not be attached, and the car is reduced to a static ‘entity’ incapable of moving in order to ‘survive’ (or function as a means of locomotion). The wheel would need to somehow ‘evolve’ another means of attachment in order for the car to move and thrive again-
There are probably some problems with the above example, but it basically illustrates that some components are reducible and will not affect the function of the entity, but some critical parts are not reducible and will result in failure of the entity to function as designed if they are missing