The argument from irreducible complexity fails

Observations: 1. Yes, the the evolution-creation debate is unscientific. Some of the evidences are, but on the whole it can't be tested. 2. Well, yes, I don't dispute the eye could have evolved, though it would be a pretty long shot. However I noticed that from your comment, “but later shown how the evolution took place” , you seem to assume that showing something is irreducibly complex means that the evolution took place. All explanations for how evolution took place are simply hypothesises, because, as you mentioned before, evolution is neither testable nor repeatable. . Showing something is possible doesn't mean it actually happened. I will touch on the blood clotting problem in a moment. 3. Well, yes, the digestive system isn't technically part of the respirative system, however, the glucose it generates is needed for the respiratory system to do it's job. Blood Clotting: Ken Millers argument seems to be based solely on the fact that the dolphins and puffer fish have a few missing proteins, and it still works. But there is a problem with this. When the same thing is done to us humans, our blood clotting system fails. (I am going to assume this is true, as no one has yet used humans to try an demonstrate the failings of IC). So there must be something that dolphins and puffer fish do or don't have that causes this effect. Therefore, this means that the puffer fish and dolphins have a different system to humans. Human blood clotting systems are still irreducibly complex after this argument. There are also more arguments in this link, but I think they were above my level to report correctly. . http://www.trueorigin.org... Contention 1: Examples of irreducible complexity exist. Before I continue debating my opponent on this I would like to ask him a few things about his argument. 1. Does this hypothesis of evolution go all the way to the bacterial flagellum, or does it stop at the ten proteins Ken Miller talked about his video? 2. Does this hypothesis has an official name, so I can find out more about it? Also, despite my opponents best attempts, I still don't fully understand the argument. I was going well, but there doesn't seem to be any relation between the arguments shown in the third and fourth diagrams. The Respiratory system Looking at the source you provided, my first thought is that I'm out of my depth. In terms of my knowledge and understanding of this, I don't think could formulate an effective argument. I humbly request my opponent that we discontinue this particular argument. “Remember: we should not be thinking of trying to go from complex to simple, but from simple to complex. ” What did you mean by this? Irreducibly complexity is intellectually ignorant. Well in the case of it being like a hydra, technically, that is true. However, any reasonable person would probably drop the argument if it had been convincingly refuted time and time and time again, especially if it had been done through the same formula. My opponent also invokes the argument from ignorance objection. But that objection essentially hinges on the fact that there could be something else we don't know about. We should make all conclusions based on information we know exists, not on information that may not. Contention Three: Irreducible Complexity tells us nothing of anything Elaborate away