What is the best Darwinian objection to irreducible complexity?

Irreducible complexity is the argument that certain biological systems (like a bacterial flagellar motor) cannot have evolved by successive small modifications to pre-existing functional systems through natural selection. In other words, certain biological systems are too complex to be products of evolution because the removal of any one part destroys the function of the entire system. Irreducible complexity is seen as a challenge to Darwinian evolution which remains the dominant model in the field of biology. In fact, in the 'Origin of Species' Charles Darwin wrote, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Stephen C. Meyer is a former geophysicist who received his Ph.D. in the philosophy of science from the University of Cambridge. In this video, he explains some of the latest scientific research that has been done in response to the argument of irreducible complexity. Do Darwinists still have a leg to stand on? Watch and see!

📚 𝗥𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗲𝘀



🤝 𝗦𝗨𝗣𝗣𝗢𝗥𝗧 𝗖𝗥𝗢𝗦𝗦𝗘𝗫𝗔𝗠𝗜𝗡𝗘𝗗 (𝗧𝗔𝗫-𝗗𝗘𝗗𝗨𝗖𝗧𝗜𝗕𝗟𝗘) 🤝

👥 𝗦𝗢𝗖𝗜𝗔𝗟 𝗠𝗘𝗗𝗜𝗔 👥

🗄️ 𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗢𝗨𝗥𝗖𝗘𝗦 🗄️

🎙️ 𝗦𝗨𝗕𝗦𝗖𝗥𝗜𝗕𝗘 𝗧𝗢 𝗢𝗨𝗥 𝗣𝗢𝗗𝗖𝗔𝗦𝗧 🎙️

#Evolution #Darwin #DarwinianObjection #IrreducibleComplexity #IntelligentDesign #QuestionsAboutEvolution #Christianity #Apologetics #GodAndScience #Christians #IDontHaveEnoughFaithToBeAnAtheist #CrossExaminingIdeasAgainstTheTruthOfChristianity #CrossExamined #DrFrankTurek

[m.brandoncagle]

Just because we dont fully understand how something works yet doesnt mean there is an intelligent designer

[majinhiei]

If macro evolution is true, why isn't there an some what of an equal amount of transitional fossils from one thing "evolving" to something completely different? We have plenty fossils of ancient man, animals and dinosaurs, so if macro evolution were true, shouldn't there be thousands if not millions of transitional fossils from point A. Common Ancestor to point B. Mankind?

[LordNinja]

Imagine trying to debate a man who has been dead for 140 years when science and the theory have long moved on to a much better understanding.

[robertramsey]

To anyone that disagrees with what was said on this video or any of the like, what I can say is these people dont have to do this, they could be doing other things. There is plenty of different jobs that GOD has for us, but instead there are people like these guys and Dr. Jason Lisle and the people at Answers in Genesis and many other organizations that care about all of us. They know there is a CREATOR and work hard to come up with material to show us to try and get people saved. I personally think they do a great job, because I believed in evolution until I actually listened to what they had to say, and their explanations are far more convincing to me than the explanations of evolution. The 2 things that convince me most are 1. nothing can come from nothing, so I cant believe the universe created itself. It's absolutely impossible for nothing to create anything.
2. Soft tissue in dinosaur bones. Soft tissue can not last 65 million years under any circumstances on this planet.
I'm going to add one more, and that is where did DNA come from? Information can not just come into existence by itself and the 2nd law of thermodynamics makes it impossible for evolution to add information, not to mention there are no examples of information being added to DNA by mutation, it's always loss of information.

[festushaggen]

It all adds up to the same thing. It testifies of an extremely intelligent and powerful designer. It's ridiculous to even suggest that such complexity is the result of a cosmic accident. The accident of the gaps theory doesn't explain anything.

[AndrewWilsonStooshie]

Nothing natural has ever been proven to be irreducibly complex.

Indeed, irreducible complexity is simply an argument from personal incredulity. (I can't see how that could have possibly happened, therefore it can't have happened).

[stephenkeener]

This video was done in KJV
Could you maby do it again in
NLT ?

[robertmatos]

Every time I hear listen to an atheist speak about evolution I hear “I figured out how all the parts of the car works.”
Wonderful, so did the car create itself now that you understand how it works?

[incredulouspasta]

The best objection is that nothing has been _actually demonstrated_ to be irreducibly complex. Just because you don't know how it happened doesn't mean it can't happen. Evolution has been ongoing for billions of years, in trillions of trillions of individuals. It's completely unsurprising that the exact pathway is difficult to untangle.

[elephantshrew]

Can we get a response for the “descent of man” (ape to man transition) and the fossils scientists dig up?

[mrshankj]

One of the best Darwinian objections to the argument from irreducible complexity is that it relies on a false dichotomy. The argument from irreducible complexity does not require that complex structures must have been created through gradual evolution. It's possible that they were created through sudden, dramatic changes.

[rydrakeesperanza]

2:21 "devolutionary breakdown product" please provide a citation here I cannot imagine any biological scientist saying that as there's no such thing as devolution. If one did, it's not scientifically accurate to my knowledge

Furthermore: what is Darwinian? There's .... Evolution, period
By the way, there's a video called "exposing the discovery institute: Stephen Meyer's" or so and now I wished I watched that as now I can only extrapolate from the other exposing di video of the same creator (professor Dave)...

[peterbassey]

Imagine such super prolific undirected accident triggering the formation of sooo many complex and staggeringly colourful life forms, and then suddenly spluttering out of ideas and doing nothing else since!!!

[bootneylee]

Stephen C. Meyer has some excellent books on this topic. Darwins Doubt and Signature in the Cell are great reads. 👍

[stormy]

Turek doesn't accept the scientific fact of evolution? Does he accept gravity or magnetism?

[evangelistkimpatrik]

Irreducible complexity refutes Darwinian evolution. It is as simple as that. Divine design can be seen everywhere, if your eyes are open to the truth.

[Saa]

Don’t blame the syringe, the gap is in your head which is not convinced of anything but Darwin but on a brighter side at least you are convinced of something because universally conviction lies in the subject never in the object.

[kevinwesterville]

These guys should publish a peer reviewed scientific article lol. Do you know that for something to be a scientific theory-all the evidence should point to it and not one bit of evidence can contradict it?

[wethepeoplegh]

Is it just me or the man is speaking another language? 🤣👍

[CreationMyths]

This is not the best "Darwinian" (not a thing in over a century) objection to irreducible complexity.