Irreducible complexity always was a retarded argument anyway.
It assumes a single use for a certain feature. It also assumes that evolution is an additive process and fails to allow for evolutionary subtraction.

however, careful with the "survival of the strongest/fittest". That's a basic misunderstanding of evolutionary processes and a massive simplification.

I find engaging them in debate about the conflict between the likely function of eukaryotic introns versus the central dogma with respect to evolutionary processes usually distracts them for long enough to give them a sharp tap on the head and throw them in a canal, though.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:12, 1 reply)

misuse of "survival of the fittest"
agreed, but I think with bacteria becoming resistant, I think it's probably the best way to explain it.

In the same way with elephants, it's "survival of those whose tusks aren't worth the bother to ivory hunters"
( sandettie light vessel automatic New Twitter - @bollocksreally, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:22, closed)

kind of.
"fittest" doesn't mean what most people think it does, though. "best suited to purpose" would be better, but technically the whole concept isn't really correct.

But I agree it's probably a necessary evil to use it sometimes.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:27, closed)