What could/would falsify Irreducible Complexity?

Rrhain posed the question:
"The question is: What does it take for an advocate of ID in general and IC in particular to claim that it doesn't exist? If it is scientific, then it must be testable. If it is testable, then it can fail the test. If it fails the test, then it is discarded (to some degree)."The test would be easily conducted. You use two separate rooms and each of these rooms would contain different materials. In the first room random forces would be applied to the materials, in the second room an intelligent agent (human) would be introduced. Which one produces an item that is IC? Conduct that experiment billions of times and the results would be the same. Therefore based on scientific methods which is the better theory based on experimentation and observation?The concept of irreducible complexity makes the theory of evolution laughable without the guidance of an intelligent agent. If people were able to separate religion from this debate ID would be an accepted theory. Edited by Kevin123, : corrected typo...oops

I would consider anything that needs all its parts to function to be irreducibly complex.An example that I could use would the be Bombardier Beetle's chemical gun. It shoots chemicals out of seperate compartments that when mixed heat up to over 200 degrees. How could small modifications over time create that kind of weaponry on a bug. Either the system exists as whole or it doesn't work. In fact any mutated version would be life threatening since if the chemicals mix the bug would blow itself up.

Ok, I take back the exploding part. Still I don’t believe such a system could have evolved through random mutations even after reading a few of the theories you posted. Evolutionist claim that it started with quinones used to harden the shells and somehow hydrogen peroxide got involved resulting finally in a very cool bug defense system.So my question would be why would the first bug that mutated to store these quinones in a compartment have dominated the natural selection process. Then when the next mutation occurs and a bug develops a second hydrogen peroxide compartment why would that bug survive and pass on that new traite. And the next and the next... The final product is an impressive defense mechanism but I don't see the natural selection explains a gradual process.I guess I would look at it like the mount rushmore analogy. Three cavemen stumble upon MT Rushmore, one religious, one evolutionist, and one intelligent design advocate. They are all amazed since they do not possess the tools or knowledge to create something that big and complex. The religious caveman says: they must be gods lets worship them. The evolutionist comes up with theories on how the forces of wind and rain eroded the rock just right over billions of years. The intelligence design caveman says someone more advanced and intelligent must have created this.Ultimately how would any of the three prove their theory. They cannot. The evolutionist cites erosion patterns, and states that given enough time and trillions of mountains on trillions of planets one was bound to come out like that. He even points out other mountains and rocks that vaguely resemble a person or animal as proof. The creationist cites the mathematical improbability and the complexity of it. The religious caveman cites the bible. I think the reason that evolution is appealing because of the three it does not require anything outside of their understanding.When I look at bugs with weapons systems before we had guns, ants with coordination and communication that we still do not understand and that makes our species look bad, a bacterial flagellum that is more efficient than any engine we have and DNA that looks like software code, I see intelligence. Can I prove it, no. All I can do is point out that in everything that we can observe order does not come out of chaos unless intelligence is involved.Experiments to produce a living cell from non-living material fail. Even the experiment that tried to prove amino acids could result from random forces in an early earth has been discredited. The day evolution can replicate the creation of a living cell I will reconsider my position. Surely if it happened randomly, we should be able to duplicate with our technology and intelligence.