This is an example of argument from incredulity, because irreducible complexity can evolve naturally.
And that's an example of an argument from credulity (or faith) i.e. It's irreducibily complex but evolution is true so it must have evolved or since evolution is true it's impossible for something to be irreducibly complex.
The bacterial flagellum is not even irreducible. Some bacterial flagella function without the L- and P-rings.
Now, this did not come up in my previous post addressing this subject but for a flagellum to function it needs the pump and motor, not the rings.
s-The bacterial flagellum is not even irreducible. Some bacterial flagella function without the L- and P-rings.
t-Now, this did not come up in my previous post addressing this subject but for a flagellum to function it needs the pump and motor, not the rings.
It is pathetic you don't even understand what the definition of irreducible complexity means, it is your side's own made up term.