I mean, my example here is what this thread is about: caterpillar metamorphosis, but I spent some time reading up on it an it seems as though the consensus at t

I mean, my example here is what this thread is about: caterpillar metamorphosis, but I spent some time reading up on it an it seems as though the consensus at this point is that it evolved out of a partial-metamorphosis process. But it did not seem fully explained to me, and in the last 20 years there have been legitimate scientists (See : Donald Williamson) which proposed non-natural selection processes in order to explain it, though this has been mostly refuted. And really, I think you have just sort of illustrated my point which is : when you bring up irreducible complexity - Because that argument has been used so much by the creationists - People get vitriolic in their defense of natural selection. Natural selection is OBVIOUSLY correct on its face. It is not possible to refute. But as far as I can tell, it is still an open question as to whether or not random mutation is the ONLY means by which the genome of a species can change over time. In my view, it seems highly unlikely that random mutation is the only factor, and irreducible complexity is an argument in favor of some other process by which genomes change e.g. response to environmental factors, gene hybridization, etc. it is not an argument in favor of "intelligent design" which is the default assumption and why the argument is not taken seriously in any case.