Evolution is obviously true, right? We know that birds have mutated to have different beaks, and these new beaks which are better suited to getting their worms/nuts/honey/whatever-the-hell-the-bird-wants-eat; then stay with the species because they were beneficial, and allowed the initial bird to pass on its superior beak to its offspring. (Obviously all mutations are passed on to the offspring as well, its why midgets can only have midget babies and explains that white people are just the product of an albino fetish that got out of hand). So after enough of these small mutations have happened, then surely you end up with HUGE changes, right?
Irreducible Complexity is the idea that there are certain organs, systems, limbs, or whatever; which would be absolutely useless, if not downright detrimental, were they not to be formed 'whole'. A bunch of small, systematic changes could never produce such a useful thing - each of the stages in the mutation would be entirely worthless were they not to occur all at once, and all perfectly in tune with one-another.
Consider the evolution of the 'leg'. What worth would a lump of flesh dangling from your torso have? That single-step mutation would be worthless. For it to be useful, you would need to have bones to keep the flesh from flopping all over the place. You'd need to have muscles connected to those bones. You'd need to have a heart - and arteries and veins to pump blood to your muscles. You'd need to have a connection to the ol' noggin so that it all actually 'works'. Any single one of these mutations would be completely worthless, if not absolutely detrimental to survival. Now some arguments can be made regarding the evolution of a 'leg', one might argue that it is just what happens after a fin or a wing mutates a billion times. How the original fin/wing/whatever would come from a single-celled amoeba is anyone's guess, but the (((Scientific community))) do not seem overly concerned with this - so maybe there is some decent reason. Regardless I used the leg as an example because it clearly paints the basic idea.
What they certainly do not have good arguments for are irreducibly complex systems like the ability for blood to clot. BUT - the (((scientific community))) have refuted the idea of irreducible complexity. I wonder if they had some good reasons…
Here are some fun ones:
No Goy! This perfect analogy of something that would fall apart were you to take away from it shows that Irreducibly Complex things can be created. (Oh shit its something that is created by people with a design in mind? No matter, my next point:)
Those stupid Goy won't even realise that the whole point of the analogy was that the arch was created 'step-by-step' and not from weathering. So by adding in these naturally occurring arches we prove them wrong, and they are too stupid to realise.
Stupid Goy! Doesn't he know that complicated and meaningless words are the only way we (((academics))) write about anything? The whole point is that it sounds too intelligent and complicated for non-(((academics))) to understand - so they pay us to write more meaningless smart sounding shite, and we get to make money off of doing no real work or manual labour just like all of our chosen ancestors.
NO GOY! We Chosen have created special computer programs that show all of our theories/desires to be true. This computer program - made by us - is obviously how the real world works. No need to question why we might make a computer program that aligns with our theories/desires. Stupid goy.
There we have it folks. The (((scientific community))) has (((peer-reviewed))) the idea and proclaimed that it is wrong. You stupid Goy need to accept that you are all beasts, you are all animals, just like it says in our Talmud. YOU ARE BEASTS!