Irreducible complexity

[Mark Zuckerberg]

A myth perpetrated by [Creationists] and IDiots alike (although they are the same people really). It states that certain bodily systems are too [complex] to have [evolved] over millions of years despite evidence to the contrary

[Agnes]

This theory is a favorite of theists. It says that life is simply too complex to have developed via natural selection or random mutation. However...

on [July 11], 2002, scientists artificially re-created [polio]. Using only the DNA of the polio virus and a series of synthetic chemicals, they recreated the natural desire to reproduce, the ability to evolve, and all other mechanisms that make a virus, LIFE, work.

the [bacterial] [flagellum] argument has also been disproven. Back in 1996, scientists found that the 10-part [Type 3] secretion mechanism that [pathogenic] germs have is very similar in function to the bacterial flagellum, but does so with only 10 parts. Therefore, each supposedly irreducible mechanism is perfectly functional if you take away the RIGHT parts. It is still reducible.

the Eye argument has also been disproven. All you need are some simple photo-receptive cells that just detect light. As the species ages, this mechanism becomes more and more useful as these traits develop into actual senses. Keep in mind that these mechanisms had countless opportunities to develop across countless species during [the Cambrian] Explosion 500 million years ago, and have been getting more and more complex over that amount of time.

Sorry for using science and fact, but keep in mind that if you make a claim, theres always someone willing to check your facts.

[Mary Mallozziberg]

As has been stated, it is a favorite argument used amongst [creationists] to claim that some [organic] systems are too complex to have [evolved] as such.
In other words, it is the argument of I dont understand how it works, therefore its wrong.
Ironically, it can be used as an argument against God, too.