Talk:Irreducible complexity/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Let's try to contain this to a single discussion. -- Ec5618 21:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

RFC's

Please see for RFC's Talk:Irreducible complexity/Wade Tisthammers RFCs

IR as a term vs. a concept

A few comments on this issue.

First, here is a reference to an earlier than Behe use of the term, dating to 1986:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/11/dover_trial_plaintiffs_counsel.html

this is fairly specific to IDC and not as circumspect as von Bertalanffy, who may have been speaking of the requirement to analyze whole systems, and not necessarily the inability for a system's parts to function. I would agree with comments above that von Bertalanffy is not relevant here.

Second, the concept of irreducible complexity is critically and fundamentally linked to Intelligent Design Creationism to such a degree that the concept of irreducible complexity, if not the term, goes back as far as IDC goes, which, according to John Haught (referenced on page 24 of the Kitzmiller et. al. v. Dover Area School District memorandum decision of December 20, 2005) goes back to the Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century.

Third, I fully agree that William Paley fully articulated the IDC argument as an argument about irreducible complexity, in the 19th century.

I hope I did this right it is my first attempt at contributing...

G. Laden

Unfortunately, per WP:V and WP:RS blogs are not a suitable source. Discovery Institute blogs doubly so, considering their well-documented history of exaggeration and inflation. FeloniousMonk 02:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

This might be a good addition if we find a WP:V source, however. I'm going to go looking. Would be interesting. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

My bad regarding the blog source, I don't know what I was thinking. But yes, this is a clue to run something down and I will also look. Nonethless, I am not convinced that the reference to von B's concept of whole systems is really something that falls in the intellectual thread that is being discussed here, and earlier concepts such as I refer to (not citing blogs I quickly add!) are more relevant.

I've re-read much of Paley's argument just today and I am not convinced that irreducible complexity is a point he was making. I think he is talking about something else. When he looks at a rock, he sees something that does not need explanation, but when he looks at a watch, he sees something designed (adapted, his term). Of course, the rock does need explanation, but apparently he was not interested in geology. His arguement really is in part argument from ignorance and in part argument from being, simply, in awe. Darwin, of course, was also in awe of nature, but chose to pursue explanation through science. (G.Laden) GregLaden 02:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Irreducible complexity is the idea that a given structure effectively ceases to function if any of the various components are removed. Paley doesn't describe the concept exactly (as far as I know) but we have a verifiable cited quote of him saying something similar, "if the different parts [of the watch] had been differently shaped from what they are, of a different size from what they are, or placed after any other manner, or in any other order, than that in which they are placed" the system would effectively cease functioning. Though not identical, the concept expressed here is quite similar to Behe's irreducible complexity (which is perhaps why Behe quoted Paley). More importantly (and the reason I brought it up in the first place), this cited quote of Paley is far more similar to irreducible complexity than any verifiable citation of von Bertalanffy (see the RfC section where I give the von Bertalanffy quote). It thus seemed improper to credit an "early form" of irreducible complexity to von Bertalanffy (and not Paley), claiming that "Behe credits philosopher William Paley for the original concept, not Von Bertalanffy" while leaving out how similar Paley's idea was to Behe's. Such a thing can easily give the false impression regarding who claimed what. --Wade A. Tisthammer 04:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack removed per WP:NPA. FeloniousMonk 22:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

What personal attack are you talking about? Would you mind pointing it out? --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

That would be the nastygram you left here which has been removed at least twice, Wade. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am perfectly aware of which one of my posts FeloniousMonk has deleted KillerChihuahua. My question, where in that post is the personal attack? --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

dense. Jim62sch 00:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

You're calling me dense? Who's really the one making personal attacks here? --Wade A. Tisthammer 17:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Wade, read the link -- it's part of Wiki, advice not a PA. Jim62sch 19:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I read the link, but calling me "dense" still sounds like a personal attack--certainly more so than the phantom personal attack I allegedly made that nobody seems willing to point out to me. --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Wade, are you just funnin' with us, or are you for real? If you can't figure out how the following is a PA and wholly inappropriate, then ... well ... I don't even know what to say: PA on editor. Thest I can do is throw up my hands and shake my head in disbelief. Sorry, Wade, but that's reality. Jim62sch 22:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Jim, you said, "If you can't figure out how the following is a PA and wholly inappropriate, then ... well ... I don't even know what to say" how about you telling me what the alleged personal attack is? My posts have been removed without explanation of what the alleged personal attack is, even when I explicitly request for such an explanation in the post description.[1] If these removals of my posts are not simply disruptive deletions resulting from old grudges, why don't you explain yourself here? --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Wade, reinserting the PA on this page would have the same effect as restating the PA. Scientia tela non est. Jim62sch 15:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

So you're not going to explain why you deleted my post because doing so would be offensive? That's why you're not going to point out where the alleged personal attack is in this post? --Wade A. Tisthammer 04:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

User contacted via e-mail. Jim62sch 12:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Addendum how about this. Simply tell me if you consider the following to be a "personal attack": FeloniousMonk violated Wikipedia policy by reinserting challenged material without a cite as can be seen with this link. --Wade A. Tisthammer 05:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

First WP:CITE notes that, "This page is a style guide for Wikipedia." It is not a "policy". Second, as that comment is far less inflammatory, and not included as part of a post to a newbie, the sole purpose of which clearly appears to have been a chance to unleash an ad hom on FM, it is not a personal attack. Would it be better if you noted it directly to FM, yes, but at least now the pretense and innuendo are gone. Jim62sch 12:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

You left out some things Jim. From WP:CITE, "Providing sources for edits is mandated by Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability, which are policy. What this means is that any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor." That's why I said FeloniousMonk violated Wikipedia policy. The purpose of this this post was not to provide a personal attack, only to reply to newbie (G. Laden) whom FeloniousMonk chided for not recognizing Wikipedia policy. Felonious seemed to make something like a tu quoque remark. --Wade A. Tisthammer 18:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Wade, you really need to give it a break. I explained to you privately why it was a personal attack. I can't even figure it out why you felt the need to keep dredging it up. Additionally, the cite issue is not meant to be carried to the riduclous extremes you want to take it to. For example, I could rip through this article and require cites for Behe actually working at Lehigh University or actually being a biochemist, etc.

Additionally, your insistance on verbatim cites is more disruptive than benefificial. Many editors have wasted appreciable time on trying to placate the whims of a contentious editor who has made a pastime out of lurking on the ID and IC talkpages, presenting term-paper length theses to ask simple questions, while having made at most two (out of 6 total) edits of any value on both article pages combined.

Correct me if I'm wrong Jim, but you didn't explain why it was a personal attack. You merely pointed out the section that you considered a personal attack (the part where I pointed out FeloniousMonk violated Wikipedia policy, the apparent reason why that post was censored). The only reason I kept “dredging it up” was because no explanation was given to me why the post was being censored (an allegation of a personal attack, but nobody wanted to tell me where that was), and when something like that happens I want an explanation. Wouldn’t you? If you don't want for us to discuss this issue further, don't bring it up.

How am I taking WP:CITE to "riduclous [sic] extremes"? The issue is fairly simple. There has been challenged material (attributing the term/concept of irreducible complexity to von Bertalanffy--an attribution I suspected to be incorrect). After nearly a month of waiting for a citation, I removed the challenged material in accordance with WP:CITE, which says, "any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor." I'd like you to explain to me how my decision to remove the challenged material qualifies as a "riduclous [sic] extreme." I am not asking for cites regarding undisputed things such as Behe being a biochemist, only things for which I suspect to be inaccurate information (as the von Bertalanffy claim). If anything, editors violating WP:CITE to reinsert the uncited challenged material is what qualifies a ridiculous extreme. My attempt to make the article abide by Wikipedia policy is not.

Or perhaps you're referring to the current citation. When I checked up on the provided citation, the concept of irreducible complexity was nowhere to be found. I am not objecting because it is not "verbatim," but because the following quote:

On the one hand, every system in the hierarchical order, from the ultimate physical units to the atoms, molecules, cells, and organisms, exhibits new properties and modes of action that cannot be understood by mere summation of the properties and modes of action of the subordinate systems. For example, when the metal sodium and the gas chlorine combine to form natrium chloride, the properties of the latter are different from those of the two component elements ; similarly, the properties of a living cell are different from the properties of the component proteins and so on.....

The answer is simple. The properties and modes of action of higher levels are not explicable by the summation of properties and modes of action of their components taken in isolation. If, however, we know the ensemble of the components and the relations existing between them, then the higher levels are derivable from the components.

...is simply not the same as the concept (irreducible complexity:) of a structure ceasing to function if any of the various components are removed, and thus the quote does not support the claim that von Bertalanffy came up with this concept (of irreducible complexity). Bertalanffy instead is describing a different concept: deriving the system's properties and modes of action from the ensemble of its components. Also note that I am not entirely alone in my concerns. While the people who have stopped by from the RfC do not necessarily endorse all my views (JustinWick is against intelligent design), they seem to agree on a few things. Rick Norwood said, "The reference to Von Bertalanffy is not relevent to this article." JustinWick says that at this stage, "interpretation of Von Bertalanffy's work [that he came up with the concept of irreducible complexity]" is "original research," since no citation from a reputable expert can (yet) be found to support this, and furthermore says, "I move that the original research material be excised from the article until a verifyable source can be located." Another editor named Matt seems to agree with Justin. And so far, no such verifiable source can be given of any reputable expert who credits von Bertalanffy with irreducible complexity. All we have is a quote with a rather dubious interpretation.

You brought up that I have made at most two edits. Suppose that is true. Why is this? Even my most basic attempts to improve the article (such as removing a single piece of uncited, challenged material regarding von Bertalanffy) have met with stiff resistance by editors who are willing to violate Wikipedia policy to suit their cause. We've seen it happen right here. FeloniousMonk violated WP:CITE [2] and then Ec5618 [3]. Such behavior is more disruptive than beneficial and seriously impedes any real progress, but perhaps such behavior is to be expected when articles on controversial topics like these are written and policed by its bitter opponents.

By the way Jim, did you see my proposed compromise? Or would this compromise also be something you call an "extreme"? --Wade A. Tisthammer 05:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Addendum I just checked my e-mail Jim. You said you told me "privately why it was a personal attack," but at the time I only read your first e-mail. Were you referring to your second e-mail? The one in which you called me a jackass? Because I didn't see much of an explanation there either. --Wade A. Tisthammer 05:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

(ri) Back to War and Peace-length scatography that no one will read, eh? I skimmed it, more or less moreof the same stuff you've written before redux, and really not worth much effort commenting upon. Oh, since you felt the need to mention private e-mails (in vio of Wiki-rules), I might as well note that I also observed that you are "intellectually stilted" and that "you have much growing up to do". Oh, BTW, don't try to bring up the NPA rule: you decided to reveal the contents of a private e-mail, I just thought I'd join in for funsies. Jim62sch 22:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Jim, you said, "you felt the need to mention private e-mails (in vio of Wiki-rules)" what rule is that? You mentioned our private e-mails before I did, so I had little reason to believe it was against any rules. --Wade A. Tisthammer 00:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Not the exact content, Wade. Jim62sch 20:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, have you always been reticent to let a topic/subject/issue go? Jim62sch 20:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Have you Jim? I don't see you conceding this matter either. Also, I'm still waiting for you to show me that Wiki-rule you were talking about. --Wade A. Tisthammer 17:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Original Research?!?

No, I did not copy-past this statement. But is counting definitions is original research? There are two definitions given.

Or do you want a source for the fact that two different definitions are not neccessarily equivalent? Markus Schmaus 03:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Markus, I agree with what you wrote: if you can source the comment, you can reinsert it.

Thanks for asking about this on the discussion page -- I wish more folks would do that.  :) Jim62sch 02:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by source?

I wrote

Those two definitions are not neccessarily equivalent. A system might fullfill the conditions of the first definition and not fit into the second definition, and vice-versa.

I have to addmit, that this was wrong, the section gives not two but three definitions (two by Behe and one by Dembski). The source for this is the very same section.

I also stated that the definitions are not neccessarily equivalent. The source for this is common sense. If definitions have a different wording, they could still mean the same, but they could also have a different meaning.

I don't know what kind of source you would like to have. Markus Schmaus 14:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Quote Dembski or Behe or both -- or find a similar statement somewhere. No one ever said this stuff was easy.  :) Jim62sch 16:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

New intro

My intention was to clarify, not to make a stronger or weaker argument for either side of this controversy. Scientists dismiss Behe's notion as pseudoscientific hogwash, right? If so, the intro should clarly state this. --Uncle Ed 23:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, it does, it's just a bit more subtle than saying, "IC is hogwash". No offense, but the current intro seems pretty clear -- that's not to say it's perfect, but it's pretty much on the mark. Jim62sch 01:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Behe's "Defect"

I've done a bit of delving into it, and I've become convinced that the following portion of the intro, though purportedly supportable, is more than a bit misleading:

In 2001, Michael Behe admitted that his work had a "defect" and does not actually address "the task facing natural selection."

My primary concern is that the typical reader reads "defect" as being, basically "huge, gaping flaw". "O my gosh", the reader thinks, "he's admitted that his theory was hogwash".

In fact, however, Behe described the "defect" as a subtle "asymmetry" that was "not serious enough to fix".

(I also have a problem with the fact that Igenta wants me to actually pay $40 to read the original "Reply to my Critics". And the version of the article archived at the Discovery Institute does not contain this phrase--it appears to be a shorter version of the original article. Does anyone have another source for this article that contains the "defect" paragraph? I'd like to see it in context if we could.)

I realize that the quote in this Wikipedia article is taken nearly wholesale from the Kitzmiller decision, but let's see what the trial transcript itself says:

Q. And in the first full paragraph, you repeat some of the text that we just saw from Darwin's Black Box about why irreducible complex systems are obstacles for Darwinian explanations?

A. Yes.

Q. And then you write, However, commentary by Robert Pennock and others has made me realize that there is a weakness in that view of irreducible complexity. The current definition puts the focus on removing a part from an already functioning system.

And then continuing on after footnote 5, you say, The difficult task facing Darwinian evolution, however, would not be to remove parts from sophisticated pre-existing systems, it would be to bring together components to make a new system in the first place.

Thus, there is an asymmetry between my current definition of irreducible complexity and the task facing natural selection. I hope to repair this defect in future work. That's what you wrote, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You haven't repaired that defect, have you, Professor Behe?

A. No, I did not judge it serious enough to do so yet.

Q. So the defect you identified was, you were starting with the function and working backwards, removing parts, correct?

A. That's correct, yes.

Q. And natural selection is actually operating in the opposite direction, you start with the pre-cursors and then develop until you get to the system you're studying?

A. Yes, that would be a more difficult task.

Q. That's the asymmetry?

A. Yes.

Q. And that asymmetry has not been repaired?

A. That asymmetry is not really relevant to biological circumstances.

Its pretty obvious, reading it in context, that this is not Behe admitting a fatal flaw in his theory or something like that. His original definition simply was worded in a way that allowed his critics a technical nit--he certainly believed that the problems that irreducible complexity presented to natural selection were still obvious and valid.

I propose dropping this sentence from the article entirely. I certainly give the average Wikipedia credit for understanding complex issues, but I don't think we want to set aside the space to go through the above discussion, and I contend that the sentence by itself is grossly prejudicial.

BradC 04:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Reading the same text convinces me only that Behe was trying to talk his way around a "huge, gaping flaw" in his work and that he was trying to carefully choose the words that would be least damaging to his reputation without quite perjuring himself. His alleged judgment that this flaw is not serious enough for him to address is uncompelling. It is, to me and to many others, a patently fatal flaw in his theory. If you have a proposed rewrite, let's consider it. Simply dropping the sentence, however, would seem to be a disservice to our readers. Rossami (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Whether this is a "huge, gaping flaw" seems to be open to debate and interpretation. BradC has a good point about the sentence by itself being prejudicial (to at least some degree) and a bit misleading to what Behe actually believes. Consider the current wording:

In 2001, Michael Behe admitted that his work had a "defect" and does not actually address "the task facing natural selection."

But Behe (right or wrong) still considers irreducible complexity to be a relevant and serious obstacle for Darwinian evolution, and yet the current wording of the entry seems to suggest something different. If we are to follow WP:NPOV it would be best I think to simply say exactly what this defect is (and what Behe believes) and let the reader judge how "serious" it is. That way we are presenting the facts without taking sides. Here’s an example of what the text might look like.

Behe claims there is a weakness in the view of irreducible complexity. The difficult task for Darwinian evolution would not be to remove parts from a sophisticated pre-existing system, it would be to bring together components to make a new system in the first place; thus there is an asymmetry between the current definition of irreducible complexity and the task facing natural selection. This asymmetry is what he believes to be a defect he hopes to repair in his future work; though he does not consider it a serious one and believes it has no practical relevance to biological circumstances.

This way we are laying out all the cards on the table as to what Behe actually believes (giving no false impressions like the current wording of the sentence does), and letting the reader decide if Behe is right about the seriousness of this defect. Citations would of course be provided. And if there are any prominent ID proponents giving a rebuttal to this, they can be quoted/inserted if verifiable citations for them can be given. But I do not what Behe's views (right or wrong) to be stated in such a way that would give a false impression.

Any comments or objections for this solution? --Wade A. Tisthammer 17:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The asymmetry, contrary to Behe's comment, is a fatal flaw. Anytime you start with a premise and try to go backwards, it's a fatal flaw. How is one to whitewash that? Jim62sch 23:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Even if I agreed with you, Jim62sch (which I don't), that's not the issue here. The issue is whether BEHE himself believes this "defect" is a big deal (as the original quote implies) or not.

However, commentary by Robert Pennock and others has made me realize that there is a weakness in that view of irreducible complexity. The current definition puts the focus on removing a part from an already functioning system. The difficult task facing Darwinian evolution, however, would not be to remove parts from sophisticated pre-existing systems, it would be to bring together components to make a new system in the first place. Thus, there is an asymmetry between my current definition of irreducible complexity and the task facing natural selection.

Read this quote carefully. He's actually saying that the true task facing Darwinian evolution (creating complex structures from the ground up) is even more difficult than the rhetorical task of explaining how a complex system might be able to still work with one piece missing. In other words, there is a rhetorical loophole in his argument that doesn't really have a correlation in the biological world.

I'm going to repeat my proposal to remove the sentence from the intro, and to modify the section titled "Behe's own Criticisms"

BradC 04:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm with BradC here (mostly). BradC seems to accurately assess Behe's position. From the trial transcript it seems that Behe indeed claims the “reverse direction” regarding the asymmetry of irreducible complexity would be a more difficult task for evolution, which perhaps explains why Behe thinks the asymmetry has no practical relevance for biological systems. Whether Behe is right or wrong, we should not do anything that would convey a false impression. What we could do Jim62sch would be to state Behe's position on the alleged defect accurately (as I did with my proposal above) and then if you wish you could say something like "Critics disagree with Behe and believe the asymmetry to be a fatal flaw regarding biological systems" as long as we can cite a prominent ID proponent who clearly claims this (Wikipedia is not the place for original research, and that includes arguments against a theory one personally doesn't like). Would this compromise be acceptable to you? In any case, what we must not do is misrepresent (even carelessly) the minority view, which is what the original wording seems to do. --Wade A. Tisthammer 15:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Wade, would you rewrite that with a little less verbiosity? What precisely are you trying to say? thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Also, whether Behe sees the seriousness of his flaw is not surprising -- if he admitted that it was seriously, his argument would be blown out of the water. Besides, if memory serves the NASA folks didn't se the defect in the O-rings on Challenger as a big deal, either. Jim62sch 18:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's my proposed edit. Revise the intro to:

The overwhelming majority of the scientific community rejects the claims of irreducible complexity and other arguments of intelligent design. This rejection stems from...

This matches the language from the ID main page, and reserves the Behe "defect" issue for later in the article when it can be fully explored. Here's my proposed edit for the section currently titled "Behe's own Criticisms":

Behe admits a "Defect"

In his 2001 article "Reply to My Critics"^[4], Behe admitted that the definition of irreducible complexity he presented in his book Darwin's Black Box contains a weakness:

"The current definition puts the focus on removing a part from an already functioning system. The difficult task facing Darwinian evolution, however, would not be to remove parts from sophisticated pre-existing systems, it would be to bring together components to make a new system in the first place. Thus, there is an asymmetry between my current definition of irreducible complexity and the task facing natural selection. I hope to repair this defect in future work." (appropriate footnote to Behe's article)

Behe has not yet published any additional work addressing this issue, but has since claimed that the defect was not serious enough to warrant further work. (footnote to Kitzmiller testimony).

I like quoting the paragraph from his article in full. I am not particularly pleased with the last paragraph, though. Any suggestions on variations? Quote from a critic? "Behe's own admission that he blah blah..."

BradC 06:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Something like this from Robert Pennock? "Still waiting. ID creationists mostly ignore substantive criticisms of their arguments, but Micheal Behe has conceded in print that a counterexample I made in Tower of Babel undermined his definition of irreducible complexity. Behe promised "to repair this defect in future work" ("Reply to my Critics" Philosophy of Science 2001, p. 695), but it is over four years later and he has yet to do so." [5] Jim62sch 18:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a perfect quote, jim62sch, especially since it was Pennock's critique that Behe was responding to in his original quote. I'll go ahead and drop it in place in the article. BradC 04:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to jump the gun, jim62sch. Here's that last version. Comments welcome :)

Behe admits a "Defect"

In his 2001 article "Reply to My Critics"[14], Behe admitted that criticisms by Robert Pennock and others made him realize that the definition of irreducible complexity he presented in his book Darwin's Black Box contains a weakness:

The current definition puts the focus on removing a part from an already functioning system. The difficult task facing Darwinian evolution, however, would not be to remove parts from sophisticated pre-existing systems, it would be to bring together components to make a new system in the first place. Thus, there is an asymmetry between my current definition of irreducible complexity and the task facing natural selection. I hope to repair this defect in future work.

Robert Pennock responds:

Still waiting. ID creationists mostly ignore substantive criticisms of their arguments, but Micheal Behe has conceded in print that a counterexample I made in Tower of Babel undermined his definition of irreducible complexity. Behe promised "to repair this defect in future work", but it is over four years later and he has yet to do so.[15]

Behe has since claimed that the defect was not serious enough to warrant further work.[16]

I'm still not totally happy with the last sentence, but I think overall it looks pretty good. BradC 04:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does look pretty good, but let's see if others chime in...right now, this page is having a bit of a lull, but I have no doubt it will pick up again soon.

You might want to change "warrant further work" to "warrant repair", as that fits in better with his original statement. Also, I want to see if I can find anything written by a critic of whether the flaw is serious or not -- I think it is, but I'm not a biologist. Jim62sch 14:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Its hard to find a phrase that captures the subtlety of his testimony: "Q. You haven't repaired that defect, have you, Professor Behe? A. No, I did not judge it serious enough to do so yet." He doesn't dismiss it altogether, but thinks its not a big enough deal for him to spend a great deal of time on. We've already got two quotes, I'm hesitant to throw a third direct quote in there. BradC 14:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The wording looks decent. It conveys both sides well enough without giving a false impression. --Wade A. Tisthammer 18:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The real question is, "do we need it?" Also, I'd suggest that any changes are made if, and only if, a consensus is reached. Jim62sch 00:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we do need it, since the current wording gives a false impression. --Wade A. Tisthammer 16:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that the wording right now is at best misleading, and it seems BradC has done a pretty good job putting both perspectives in on this --AlsatianRain 18:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Random Mutation

The website randommutation.com has a simple model to demonstrate that Darwinian evolution doesn't work. Using an English sentence with words and letters to represent a strand of DNA and its genes and genetic letters, the model allows the online user to mutate the letters and see what happens. Sure enough, the mutations accumulate and obliterate all sense and meaning, thus proving Darwin wrong.

The is however a flaw or two in the model. In each generation, there is only one offspring, and it is not possible to CHOOSE between offspring that are preferable in some way as against offspring that are less preferable. The essense of Darwinism is after all "selection of the fittest" is thus ommited from the model. A choice of one option is, it is humbly submitted, is no choice at all. This resembles Hobson's choice or Soviet-style elections.

One might also add, that only one sentence at a time is allowed to participate in the mutation process. It would be more realistic to have population of several sentences.

Tabletop 10:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, let's thank Mr Dembski for such silliness. One can run the exact same model to show that a Royal Flush in Spades dealt directly (first deal, no discarding) in a shuffled deck is outside the boundaries of acceptable probability, and yet it has happened. Jim62sch 23:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Link doesn't appear work. But, of course, the fallacy of most of these examples is that they the improbability of random mutations generating "information". That is, of course, a straw man, since it ignores this little process known as natural selection. Guettarda 06:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Link fixed.

The problem, however, is that natural selection can only select what random mutations have produced. Perhaps there is something wrong with Dembski's argument, but the magic wand of "natural selection is non-random" is far too vague to solve the problem here. --Wade A. Tisthammer 15:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Apparently introducing an intelligent designer (allows the online user to mutate) is less successful than introducing natural selection. Peter Grey 13:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Sadly the "intelligent designer" is code for a deity, and ID itself is merely a reworking of creationism. Oh, Wade, do you have even the remotest idea how many "random mutations" have been produced? There's a huge pool for natural selection to work with. The argument that things couldn't have ended up as they are in an "unguided process" is utterly asinine for the simple reason shown in the card example a few posts up. Jim62sch 19:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

An intelligent designer is not the same thing as a deity (aliens are a counterexample). Whatever the adherents of a theory may believe, the actual theory itself contains no deities. Confer the ad hominem fallacy.

Insisting on Aliens being the authors of Intelligent Design merely pushes the issue farther back in time. Where did the aliens come from? Natural selection? Or were they designed, and if so, by whom? Jim62sch 18:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there are many mutations, a huge pool to work with. But the vague notion of large numbers isn't enough to solve the problem. There are many cases were even enormous pools of random chance are insufficient to overcome a challenge. Suppose for instance we wanted to print a paragraph of 500 characters using only random chance. For simplicity, we'll ignore things like lowercase vs. uppercase and punctuation. There are 26^500 different possibilities, or 10^707. Would random chance be able to produce it? Let's do the math. If the universe were solid packed with neutrons, there would be 10^128 of them.[6] Suppose each neutron writes a random string of 500 characters 10^44 times a second (probably beyond the physical limit because of Planck time). Let's also give the universe 300 billion years, or about 10^19 seconds. What are the odds the paragraph will be formed (assuming the paragraph is instantly selected once random chance creates it)? (10^19 * 10^44 * 10^128)/10^707 = 1/10^516. Still astronomically small. So merely pointing to the "huge pool" of random happenings is not automatically going to solve a problem involving random chance (as can be seen from trying to produce a single paragraph being by random chance). --Wade A. Tisthammer 03:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

May I kindly suggest taking this discussion to talk.origins? The talk page here is not for arguing whether or not the ideas are correct per se. Thats OR. JoshuaZ 04:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who started it. If you don't want to discuss whether the ideas are correct, don't bring it up. My only point of bringing up the paragraph example was to show that the casual "lots of mutations and lots of time" response is far too strained to be of any practical use. --Wade A. Tisthammer 05:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

You are right on the mechanism you described, but it is not evolution. Before it becomes evolution, you have to add natural selection, heritable variation and many individuals. --KimvdLinde 05:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

True, but natural selection can only select what mutation has first produced. My point is the "large numbers of random changes" objection is far too strained to automatically solve the problem, as the example I provided above shows. Incidentally, there are more apt analogies available. One of them has to do with starting with a small meaningful phrase, recreate the sentence with some changes and added letters (symbolizing mutation), replace the new sentence if the change is meaningful (symbolizing natural selection) and repeat until you get the information equivalent of human genetic material (several thousand volumes). The result was that it required many more “offspring” than the number of atoms in the universe. Whether this analogy is valid or not, it seems clear that the simplistic claim of "large numbers of mutations" is simply far too strained to be of much good here. --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't claim you had. I interjected the comment after it seemed like the topic had gotten long, winding and irredeemably irrelevant to the article at hand. JoshuaZ 06:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Great, just when I wanted to comment on the problems with the math.  :) Jim62sch 18:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

A thought

How does the concept of functionality creep apply here? DS 23:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting correlation, although I usually think of "feature creep" from a programming standpoint where the customer keeps changing their mind about what they want. Has either Behe or his critics used "functionality creep" as part of their arguments? BradC 06:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Ugh, you just had to mention "feature creep". I'm surprised more programmers don't jump off of bridges. Jim62sch 18:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

End note help

I don't think it was based on my most recent edit, but the endnote numbering seems out of whack. And when should we use endnotes vs simply putting the link straight into the text? (which oddly also generates a number) It seems like both techniques are used in this article, somewhat randomly. Then we have this unexplained bulleted list at the end. Can someone help straighten it out? BradC 05:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Changed format; this format isn't quite as nice looking but it is consistent, and has the advantage of the endnotes never getting out of order. If someone wants to change it to another format it won't bother me. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

That silly arrow drives me nuts, but, I guess it'll work (and no, it doesn't look as nice). Jim62sch 14:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The 'arrow' is a result of a recent vote, of sorts, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Changes to Cite.. It was decided that the ^ was confusing, whereas an arrow is not. Personally, I find the arrow anything but an improvement, and I'm considering bringing the issue up for a proper vote. -- Ec5618 14:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do! Jim62sch 00:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

HTML ref tags are not used on the project. I've converted it back to the ref/note template and fixed the ordering. The correct templates are found here: Wikipedia:Template_messages/General#Footnotes_and_references and instructions on how to force numbering to compensate for preceding inline ext. links is here: Template_talk:Ref. FeloniousMonk 21:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry? What are you saying? The ref tag was specifically developed for Wikipedia, specifically to replace the ref/note templates. How could it possibly not be used on the project? If you have an issue with the appearance of the references, please take it up elsewhere, but the tag is clearly 'used on the project'. See also Wikipedia:Footnotes. -- Ec5618 09:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Ref templates, yes. Ref tags, no. There's a difference. FeloniousMonk 00:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

As of late December 2005, tags also. Follow Ec5618's link. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Not Science

"In the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial Behe testified under oath that irreducible complexity did not rule out known evolutionary mechanisms and that there are no peer-reviewed articles supporting his argument that certain complex molecular structures are "irreducibly complex." [2] that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature." Is this sentance meant to say what it does? I would think it would be more accurate to say "In the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial Behe testified under oath that irreducible complexity did not rule out known evolutionary mechanisms and that there are no peer-reviewed articles supporting his argument that certain complex molecular structures are "irreducibly complex." [2] The Judge ruled in that case that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature."

Or if you think it should remain as is, can you give a citation for his position on "not science"? It just seems a bit contrary to what I heard him say in that trial. --AlsatianRain 12:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, it appears the text was in fact there, just not visible because of a broken reference tag. I've fixed the tag. --AlsatianRain 14:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Does irreducible complexity exist in the real world?

Are there any real-life examples of irreducible complexity? In the sense that someone has actually demonstrated mathematically that some construct or other cannot be generated from simpler components, as opposed to saying something is 'irreducibly complex' to disguise a failure of the human imagination? Peter Grey 06:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

If its existance could be mathematically proven, it wouldn't be quite so controversial. No, there are no undisputed examples of irreducible complexity, partly because any structure may have had a support stucture that was later removed.

A microchip, for example, would have an enormous support structure (the machinery that created it) which was not irreducibly complex as a whole. When the chip was expelled from the machinery, the chip, while seemingly being irreducibly complex, clearly isn't.

I suggest you read the article for more. -- Ec5618 08:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

A mousetrap with a spring, where the spring is the key componenet and has to have good tension to work properly, and where this spring is rather difficult to make, has simpler designs without that spring, including a hole in the ground that a mouse cannot climb out of once it falls in, or perhaps a deadend where the mouse can be trapped or cornered. These primitive springless mousetraps would suffice while one figures out how to make a decent spring. One has to try and think out how the mouse catching might be solved in some other way. To prove irreducible complexity, you would have to prove that none of the often sometimes unknown methods work which is rather difficult. Behe, one author of IC, has been accused - rightly - of lack of imagination, and cannot for example think of how a mousetrap can be made without a good metal spring. Tabletop 09:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

And for fun, see A reducibly complex mousetrap (graphics-intensive, requires JavaScript). ..dave souza, talk 11:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It would seem that the essential weakness in "irreducible complexity" (aside from being mere technobabble that translates 'anything I don't understand can't exist without supernatural intervention') is that, from the definition, it's on a totally different tangent from evolutionary biology. The definition refers to the removal of any one of the parts, but organisms do not grow by assembling off-the-shelf parts (unless you count chemical elements); all the "parts" develop or evolve together. Peter Grey 02:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The worldwide economic system is an example of irreducible complexity in the real world. If you take any piece of it away, thwe whole thing ceses to function. Without trucks there is no commerce, without steel there are no trucks. How did the first truck get built if there were no trucks to carry the steel to build it? This proves that our worldwide economic system had a central designer and we in fact live under communism, because the free market is incapable of generating a system so complex. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Loverevolutionary (talk • contribs) 15:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

You're misinterprating what IR means. Jefffire 15:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

RfCs

This second RFC discussion has been moved to the Talk:Irreducible complexity/Wade Tisthammers RFCs subpage to minimize disruption of this page. FeloniousMonk 18:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I assumed that it hould have been a subpage, not a new page. Moved page and repaired linkKimvdLinde 18:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Correct, thanks. FeloniousMonk 18:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you delete the wrong page, is now redirect? KimvdLinde 18:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing. Done. FeloniousMonk 19:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Fixed link at RfC page to correct section of subpage. KimvdLinde 19:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

There are a couple problems here, (1) Since when are RfC's considered "disruptive"? (2) The link includes sections that are not the RfC and in fact predate it. --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

1) RFCs are not disruptive per se, but chronic malcontents who repeatedly use them to force an issue are. 2) Context. FeloniousMonk 19:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

You're calling me disruptive? Who's the person who blatantly ignored WP:CITE and put back the challenged, unsourced material? Who's the person who removed the RfC I put up in response to your violation of WP:CITE? --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Wade, your behaviour is disruptive. Jim62sch 19:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Your RFC was inappropriate inasmuch as it did not cite the dispute in a neutral manner. Nor was it accurate. Guettarda 20:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

How so? "A questionable claim was eventually removed because a citation was not provided for the challenged material. Should the material be removed or is a citation not required?" At the time this was true (it was later updated when a citation was provided). But FeloniousMonk did not think a citation was needed for this challenged claim, appealing to an imagined consensus and blatantly ignoring WP:CITE.[7] FeloniousMonk himself did not remove the RfC on the grounds of it not being "neutral" or "accurate," rather his justification was that the RfC was a "tendentious entry from chronic malcontent." So putting up the RfC was tendentious, as opposed to blatantly defying Wikipedia policies and guidelines when the they become inconvenient for a particular viewpoint? --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of the "begging the question" fallacy? Jim62sch 01:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of backing up your insinuated accusations? (At least I was able to back up my claims about FeloniousMonk). --Wade A. Tisthammer 01:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Wade, you have just admitted to being disruptive. "At the time this was true (it was later updated when a citation was provided)" - you admit that a citation was provided. If a citation was provided, then the point is supported by a citation - so making the same arguments here is nothing but disruption. Now that you have admitted to the accusation, please archive your latest time-wasting, and lets get on with writing an encyclopaedia. Guettarda 16:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

You appear to have misunderstood what I said. "At the time this [the Rfc] was true" what I meant was at the time there was indeed no citation when I made the RfC. Check the timestamp yourself if you wish. FeloniousMonk stood by his claim that a citation wasn't necessary (blatantly ignoring WP:CITE even when I quoted it to him) and was even willing to go so far as to remove the RfC that challenged this claim. I know that controversial issues like these can arouse heated emotions, and seems that the accusation of "disruption" may be thrown around too easily. In what way am I disruptive? Questions like these often go unanswered, as are requests to justify accusations. If anything, it is "disruptive" to attack other editors and then shy away from providing the requested evidence. You said, "If a citation was provided, then the point is supported by a citation" but that's not necessarily true. Consider for instance the RfC I made regarding whether the citation (regarding Ludwig von Bertalanffy). I made this RfC because when I actually looked up the von Bertalanffy citation, I found that it contained neither the term nor the concept of irreducible complexity--even though the citation was supposed to support the idea von Bertalanffy came up with the concept. A number of people from the RfC stopped by and seemed to agree that the citation doesn't do the trick. If anything, it's a waste of time to ignore Wikipedia policies and guidelines when they become inconvenient (in the name of attacking pseudoscience), and resist all possible attempts to correct these violations (like mine). Over the past several months, the issue has already gone through a reasonably long waiting period for a requested citation, a blatant violation of WP:CITE, two RfC's (more if you count the ones FeloniousMonk deleted), one withdrawn mediator, with a new one on the way. If this keeps up I fear it may eventually lead to arbitration--all over what should have been a simple correction of this Wikipedia entry. --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

When you filed the RFC (March 23) the reference was already there (as you admitted). You (disruptively) campaigned to get the material removed from this article, despite the failure of your previous (disruptive) campaign to have to material removed from the other article. Despite the fact that the material was referenced, you (disruptively) posted an RFC in which you (disruptively) made misleading allegations. The fact that you admitted to knowing that a reference exists shows that your behaviour was intentionally disruptive.

As for the von B. issue - I have tried my best to explain concept after concept to you, as have other people. I'm sorry if they are too difficult for you to understand. Guettarda 20:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

(ri)Pretty much sums up my feelings. •Jim62sch• 23:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Admitted? Did you read the post you were responding to? Please pay attention to what I say Guettarda. When I filed the RfC (January 18)[8] no citation was present.[9] Please explain where I have "failed" to get the material removed from another article. Please also explain why my campaign to get the challenged material removed under WP:CITE is to be considered disruptive, please explain how it was disruptive. Isn't the willful ignoring of Wikipeida guidelines to reinsert the challenged material being disruptive?[10] Does enforcing Wikipedia policies and guidelines become "disruptive" when those policies and guidelines become inconvenient to someone? Does posting RfC's become "disruptive" when they challenge what someone wants to remain in the article? And what are these "misleading" allegations in this RfC and how are they misleading? How exactly am I disruptive? --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Damn, you're disruptive even when asking for a definition of why you're disruptive. The basic point is this: you ask for cites, are given cites, reject the cites, demand more, are given more, reject those, too. Get the point? •Jim62sch• 01:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, how am I disruptive? This has not been explained to me. For instance, Guettarda said I "disruptively" put up an RfC. How was I disruptive in putting it up? This “disruptive” accusation is beginning to seem more like empty rhetoric. True, I ask for cites, and I am given cites, but if those cites do not actually support the challenged material in question of course I'm going to reject them. And if those cites fly in the face of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, of course I'm going to reject those cites. One cannot just provide cites willy-nilly and expect they've fulfilled my requests, and it is not disruptive to request that the cites provided satisfy those sorts of criteria (actually support the challenged material in question, coincide with Wikipedia policies and guidelines). --Wade A. Tisthammer 16:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Quod erat demonstratum. •Jim62sch• 01:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Removal of bad analogy?

"It is illustrative to compare a mousetrap with a cat, in this context. Both normally function so as to control the mouse population. The cat has many parts that can be removed leaving it still functional; for example, its tail can be bobbed or it can be spayed. Evolution has endowed it with redundant eyes, so if one eye goes blind, the cat can still catch mice. Comparing the cat and the mousetrap, then, one sees that the mousetrap (which is not alive) offers better evidence, in terms of irreducible complexity, for intelligent design than the cat."

The above paragraph compares a mousetrap (small, specific system) to a complete organism (many small, specific system_s_). The comparison itself is overly flawed, as well, giving the impression that the vision system is redundant (overlooking depth perception) and using cherry-picked examples (eyes vs heart, brain, stomach/intestines/etc.). I suggest that better analogy should be picked, or IMO, the paragraph should be removed altogether to better allow the reader to draw his/her own conclusions.

For clarification, the mousetrap argument is oft used in comparison with a single system within a complete organism - the eye or the bacterial flagellum being the most common example. WeedWhacker 09:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Both the eye and flagellum contain components which can be removed and still leave a functioning unit. Jefffire 10:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Uh, the mousetrap was Behe's choice. Send him an e-mail. •Jim62sch• 21:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Suggested intro

Irreducible complexity is a failed attempt to teach religion in classrooms in America; as its foremost proponet admited under oath that it doesn't have anything to do with the evolutionary mechanisms it was originally designed as an argument against.

In the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial Behe testified under oath that irreducible complexity did not rule out known evolutionary mechanisms and that there are no peer-reviewed articles supporting his argument that certain complex molecular structures are "irreducibly complex." The result of the trial was the ruling that "intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature."

In his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box, Behe argued that there are biochemical systems which are "irreducibly complex" because he lacked knowledge concening how these systems could be broken down into smaller functioning systems. In 2001, Michael Behe admitted that his work was defective and does not actually address what it was supposed to addrress. WAS 4.250 04:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you could replace the first two paragraphs and start right in with that text. It might make sense to someone already familiar with the topic but would be too cryptic for someone trying to learn about this for the first time. We have to define the concept before we can begin to discuss its implications. Rossami (talk) 05:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

What it is, is a failed attempt to get religion taught in public schools. Its "definition" is such that it doesn't achieve its objective. It serves neither its original purpose nor any other good purpose. Its like a self-contradictory math theorem - pointless. Discussing the details of its definition is only useful for the purpose of pointing out the definition serves no purpose. WAS 4.250 05:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree slightly. I consider it a creation theory (little "c") first. What you describe is what I would call the motivation behind the theory. While appropriate to discuss in the article, I think that readers will be better served if the article starts simple and builds to more complex issues such as alleged motivation. But perhaps I'm misunderstanding how you propose to integrate your paragraphs into the existing article. Could you make a /temp page to show us exactly what you're considering? Rossami (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

There appear to be some misunderstanding of the opposing viewpoint (not uncommon in emotionally heated debates). "Behe argued that there are biochemical systems which are "In his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box, irreducibly complex" because he lacked knowledge concerning how these systems could be broken down into smaller functioning systems." I do not believe this is true. In the book, he argued that a given system (as blood clotting) is irreducibly complex because it effectively ceases to function if any of the components are removed. Whether his claim is correct here I don't pretend to know, but it had nothing to do with his own personal knowledge regarding breaking it down to smaller functioning systems. He simply meant that if any of the components are removed (regardless of who did it and what the individual's personal knowledge is) it does not function and claimed that for highly complex biochemical systems, irreducible complexity poses a serious obstacle. Behe may be incorrect here, but we should not misrepresent him.

I suspect Behe's belief in the "defect" may also be exaggerated (I'm not claiming there aren't any defects in the irreducible complexity argument, I'm questioning the extent to which Behe believes this to be the case). For instance, in Behe's testimony in the Kitzmiller v. Dover, it was revealed that "there is an asymmetry between my current definition of irreducible complexity and the task facing natural selection. I hope to repair this defect in future work." However, Behe believes that the "asymmetry is not really relevant to biological circumstances" suggesting that Behe does not believe it to be a problem when it comes to evolution. Perhaps it is a problem, but if so Behe does not recognize it, and insinuating otherwise would be misleading. --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

"Irreducible complexity is a failed attempt to teach religion in classrooms in America" this intro would seem to violate WP:NPOV a wee bit and seems to attack the ID movement rather than irreducible complexity itself. Also, its veracity is a bit unclear. The concept of irreducible complexity (IC) is a given structure (as a complex biochemical system) ceases to function if any of the various components are removed. Even if IC is not a serious barrier to naturalistic evolution (or is flawed on some other level), how is this concept religious? Or would “religious” be an aspect better attributed to some people who use the concept? --Wade A. Tisthammer 16:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The motive behind creating the concept was to advance religion. When it became clear that the concept as defined had zero relevance to evolution and thus can not be used as factual material to advance religion, instead of agreeing it was a failed concept, sophistry has been used to make it a successful nonfactual sciency sound bite to advance religion. WAS 4.250 17:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Wade will no doubt disagree. He forgets Behe's purpose in developing IC. •Jim62sch• 02:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I object to the claim, "Irreducible complexity is a failed attempt to teach religion in classrooms in America," as an opening sentence in an encyclopedic article. After all, advocates of this failed attempt argue that it is not about religion. Now, you and I might find that protest a bit imaginative, but I don't think that the article ought to start out like this. It is POV (not only that it aims to teach religion, but that it has failed)! Intelligent design is an on-going controversy, whether we like it or not. Phiwum 16:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

So you claim it is religious because "The motive behind creating the concept was to advance religion."? There are a number of problems here, such as providing evidence that this motive actually existed, at least when it comes to modern times (the advent of Darwin's Black Box). Behe is a Roman Catholic and had no religious objections to evolution, but let's ignore that for the moment. Suppose it is true that adherents’ motivations are entirely religious. The problem is that this criticism attacks not the theory, but rather the adherent. Newton's stated motives in forming some of his theories was to promote belief in God. The stated motives of Enlightenment thinkers in adopting Newtonian theories was to destroy religion. Neither of these contradictory motivations impacted the actual content of the theory, because attacking the adherent uses the ad hominem fallacy (see also the genetic fallacy. Even if the adherents are guilty of sordid deeds and motivations, that in itself says nothing about the theory. Too many times I've seen fallacies committed in the name of attacking pseudoscience, and I suggest we all be a bit more careful. If you want to show that a given theory is religious, it's best to attack the theory itself, e.g. point out which concepts of the theory are religious and explain why. --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

How is it a creation theory? WAS 4.250 20:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Surely you jest. •Jim62sch• 23:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not jesting. WAS 4.250 23:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

At its core, irreducible complexity is a theory about how the universe and, in particular, how living things were created. Evolution via natural selection is also a (little "c") creation theory. So is the Babylonian belief that Marduk fashioned mankind from the blood of Kingu.

If you look at the Creation belief page, you will see natural selection listed as a Science-based belief and the Babylonian as a Religion-based belief. Of course, how you categorize irreducible complexity is a matter for debate and discussion. The Origin belief page currently lists all Creation science as a science-based belief but immediately qualifies it as pseudoscience. Rossami (talk) 21:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

How is it "a theory about how the universe and, in particular, how living things were created"? WAS 4.250 23:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you going somewhere with this, or just grazing? •Jim62sch• 23:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely clear where I'm going with this, but the source you provided details my own beliefs about this ridiculous hand-waving self-contradictory nonsense that some charitably call a theory. WAS 4.250 23:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem I see with the article is that it treats it as a scientific theory rather than the religious sophistry that it is. WAS 4.250 03:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

You're missing the point: it is presented as science, not as sophistry. Thus, as its presentation is specious, and as IC is considered pseudoscience, it gets treated that way. •Jim62sch• 02:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

new data

I don't know enough about the topic of this article to edit it myself, but this (#2) says

2. MISSING GENES: FINDING THE KEY THAT OPENS DARWIN'S BLACK BOX. It was a lousy day for intelligent design, which has had a lot of bad days lately. Even as a missing link showed up on the pages of Nature, a report in Science from the University of Oregon showed how a new hormone-receptor pair evolved. An existing molecule, created for a different role, was recruited to do the new job. The lead author, Joseph Thornton, believes this may be common in the evolution of complex systems. Hormone-receptor pairs would seem to be an example of what intelligent-design guru Michael Behe calls "irreducible complexity" (ID). One without the other would be useless. However, Behe scoffed to the NY Times that Hormone-receptor pairs aren't really ID. Either he's still a little cranky from the Dover trial, or he just prefers miracles (WN 21 Oct 05) .

It might be worthy of inclusion in the article. (When he says "ID", does he mean "IC"?) Bubba73 (talk), 02:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting news article

re evolution Ties in well with the above. •Jim62sch• 22:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The Flagellum

The article "Unlocking cell secrets bolsters evolutionists" (Chicago Tribune, Feb 13, 2006) was wrongly attributed to Kenneth Miller. The author is Jeremy Manier, staff reporter of the Chicago Tribune. Since this article is not accessible any more on the URL given, I have removed the reference. (Kenneth Miller's article "The Flagellum Unspun" is more interesting anyway.)

This paragraph had to bee worked on:

Additionally, the argument regarding the complexity of the flagellum is being disproven by additional scientific experiments. Kenneth Miller, a professor of cell biology at Brown University and other evolutionary researchers have noticed that the flagellum resembled a needle-like structure that bacteria such as salmonella use to inject toxins into living cells. The needle's base has many elements in common with the flagellum, but it is missing most of the proteins that make a flagellum work. Thus, this system seems to negate the claim that taking away any of the flagellum's parts would render it useless. It also suggests how the marvelously complex flagellum could have evolved from simpler forms. This has caused Miller to note that, "The parts of this supposedly irreducibly complex system actually have functions of their own."

The argument explained here is very well readable but by no way additional. It is actually the very same argument ofthe TTSS explained in the paragraph before. Nonetheless this signals that the explanation above was probably too short and not clear enough. Therefore I've built some of it into the paragraph above.

I've also addded a little context to the Yersinia pestis argument to make its meaning more clear. Since Miller's article "Flagellum Unspun" has been responded to at length, I've also added the link to this.

Hope the whole thing is more clear and understandable now.

--Liberatus 13:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide a reference for:

a genetic study of Yersinia pestis, which causes the bubonic plague, has shown their TTSS is a degenerated flagellum. The bacteria own the complete set of genes for the flagellum, but they have lost the ability to completely build it.

Medline does not help to find it. Darked 22:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The source is listed in the main article Evolution of flagella. --Liberatus 19:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The Manier article is easily found with Google, [11], so I've restored it. The orginal TTSS passage was accurate and cited, whereas your rewrite oddly dropped the supporting citation for Miller while adding Behe's response to Miller, which has since been shown to be less than compelling, so I've restored the original passage. FeloniousMonk 16:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

And you've restored the wrong author name, too, probably unintentionally. - What you've found with Google is only a four paragraph teaser, which doesn't even mention Miller's name. Their "complete story" link, to chicagotribune.com again, seems to be as dead as the one that I've deleted on Wednesday.

Well, I've found an accessible copy of the complete Manier article online at myrtlebeachonline.com. I've added the link, in case anyone might find it instructive, and for a good measure put Miller's "functions of their own" statement in again, since now the source is available. Should make everyone happy.

The original paragraph about Kenneth Miller is _inaccurate_, in that it leaves the reader unaware that the needle-like structures it talks about are the very same TTSS mentioned in the paragraph before, giving the impression of talking about something different and moreover calling the matter "additional". I assume the writer misunderstood the matter just the way he presented it.

--Liberatus 22:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Mousetrap

I removed the "Even his example of a mousetrap was shown to be reducible by John H. McDonald." but this change was reverted. Not only is this statement extremely judgmental, like the whole entry actually, but this article is contested by Behe and anyone willing to look at both articles has to come to the conclusion that McDonald utterly failed. See Behe's defense. --Berend de Boer 20:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Behe's defense misses the point - McDonald addressed the analogy as initially used by Behe. Like just about everything else, ID proponents try to be a moving target - once their example is disproven, they reply with "but what I really meant was..." Guettarda 20:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It not only misses the point, failing to disprove McDonald's work, but it is specious at best, dishonest at worst as he accuses Miller of using the exact same tactics Behe used in "Darwin's Black Box". "In order to communicate the concept to a general audience, I used a mousetrap as an example of an irreducibly complex system in everyday life" vs "On his web site Professor McDonald was careful to make a critical distinction. He clearly stated "the reduced-complexity mousetraps . . . are intended to point out the logical flaw in the intelligent design argument; they're not intended as an analogy of how evolution works." Nonetheless Kenneth Miller discussed McDonald's examples in a way that would lead an audience to think that they were indeed relevant to Darwinian evolution. Only at the end of the presentation did he briefly mention the disanalogy." Pot, meet kettle. •Jim62sch• 22:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Wooha, but guys, this was all about proving how you can build a mousetrap by incremental steps. And they failed. As Behe notes: "Neither Miller nor anyone else has shown that the mousetrap I pictured in my book can be constructed by a series of small changes, one at a time, as Darwinian evolution would have to do. The important take-home lesson is that even things that look superficially similar, such as the series of traps Miller showed, may not be able to be transformed into each other through a Darwinian process." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Berend de Boer (talk • contribs)

So Behe, of all people, demands empirical proof of an analogy! He shows an astonishing gift for self delusion. In contrast, McDonald has the best cartoons ;) ..dave souza, talk 08:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Mr Unsigned...Darwinian evolution does not have to do that- you are clearly misunderstanding the basis of evolution. Evolution does not tack extra bits on one at a time like a mechanic assembling a car from scratch. The truth is that Darwinian evolution allows for multiple change to occur simultaneously, it allows for the purpose of an object to change (see bacteria flagellum) and it also allows for components to be removed at various stages. Weenerbunny 30 June 2006 the preceding comment was actually made by anonymous user 195.153.124.163 (talk • contribs)

Behe argues that the theory that irreducibly complex systems could not have been evolved can be falsified by an experiment where such systems are evolved. For example, he posits taking bacteria with no flagella and imposing a selective pressure for mobility. If, after a few thousand generations, the bacteria evolved the bacterial flagellum...

-- This is silly, and should be removed, corrected, or rebutted. In biological evolution, a few thousand generations is but a nano-drop in the bucket, and Behe knows this. Due to the huge amount of time, it's largely impossible to do real biologial evolutionary experiments (a potential exception to this is Richard Lenski's currently 18+ year E-coli experiments). The huge amount of time involved is precisely why people do computer simulations instead of the real thing. To do true testing of Behe's hypothesis in this manner it would take at least as long as Lenski's Ecoli. Furthermore, in this experiment Behe simply ignores selecting for anything other than locomotion. Hence, you can't get exaptation from one function to another. And, it is *precisely* this exaptation which the Avida literature has shown to allow evolution create irreducibly complex systems.

Criticism Sections

There are two extremely redundant criticism sections, personally I don't feel like editing them. Just making note in case anybody would like to consolidate those.

I agree with this statement. The whole entry is too long and very biased. Not everyone who says Behe is wrong has made a good point. Behe isn't even allowed to respond to his critics in the major journals. One would think that after 150 years evolutionists would have done some decent repeatable experiments to back up their statements. Take a fruit fly and evolve some new functionality. Should be easy, shouldn't it? --Berend de Boer 20:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

"Allowed"? That's false. In fact, Behe's commentry was solicited in reply to papers pointing out the holes in Behe & Snook. Guettarda 20:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

See Correspondence with Science Journals, quote: "Much of the material shown posted as 'responses to critics' on this website was originally submitted to several science journals for consideration for publication.In every case it was turned down."

What's your point again? I see correspondence with a few journals. If you are going to try to publish fourth-rate stuff, you usually end up at a fourth-rate journal. The page includes correspondence with a few journals - the extensive correspondence at the top appears to be with a commercially published journal. He tried, the journal was out of his league, and he failed to follow through. If most people gave up after Science or Cell turned them down, they would never get published. In the second case, the journal says that it does not publish papers that are purely rebuttal, the editor suggests an alternative, which the editorial board says isn't viable because the assumptions and background are too far apart. In other words, his initial submission was outside of the scope of the journal. He contrasts it with philosophy journals which publish his rebutals. Why? Because that's what philosophy is all about. In science, you can't just srgue crap back and forth - if you can't support your ideas with experimental evidence (or at least mathematical or simulation modelling), people are going to get fed up with you pretty soon.

In Behe & Snook they came up with something real, a simulation model. Granted, it was flawed, since they took a non-selectionist case and tried to use it to show problems with selectionist models. When the paper was (fairly thoroughly) debunked, the journal editors invited Behe to reply. Why? Because he actually had something to talk about in that case. If you are talking about science, even if you are very wrong, people will let you have your say. If you aren't, they won't, although (as the letters show) journal editors try to be helpful. Saying that Behe wasn't "allowed" to reply is misleading - the only thing stopping him was the quality of the evidence and the models. The whole idea of IC is based on analogies, not models. (The fact that they are flawed analogies is beside the point). Science does not progress through analogy. If you can't get beyond analogies, you aren't going anywhere. The only one not allowing Behe to publish his ideas in science journals is Behe, either because the ideas aren't up to par (my opinion) or because he lacks the imagination to come up with experiments to test his ideas. Guettarda 13:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

But what's your point? It seems to me that it is the evolutionists who are the believers here. They claim that everything has gradually evolved, but have nothing to show for it. And if you ask for proof, they say: "The fact that we haven't any, isn't proof that we, eventually, somehow, ever, will come up with some." And the usual handwaving stories. Just one single repeatable experiment in the laboratory would do. Why do we have all these discussions? Because gradualism has failed. No one would argue with a true experiment where we get real new functionality.--Berend de Boer 19:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

In a way, everyone is right. But in anouther, more accurate way, you are wrong. I suggest reading the talk.origins archive which gives all the scientific evidence for evolution (BTW, it is an extremly large site). It's articles are very well regarded scientificaly. It is an absolute must for anyone wanting to argue against evolution to read that first. Jefffire 20:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Origin of the term

The first appearance of the term (and probably the modern concept) of IC is claimed to be the book Templets and the explanation of complex patterns by Michael J. Katz. This should be mentioned in the article, and it would be interesting to know more about it, if someone can check the book. --Tgr 20:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Why should we add that Casey Luskin stated in a post made on November 4, 2005 10:31 AM, that "My understanding is that the first usage of the term “irreducible complexity” comes from a 1986 Cambridge University Press book entitled “Templets and the explanation of complex patterns” by theoretical biologist Michael J. Katz."? I fail to see the notability of Casey Luskin, and how his understanding somehow is relevant. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Luskin appears to be one of the ID crew, and it's very questionable if evolutionnews is a reliable source. From the linked blog it seems that Katz has used the two words together in a different context, and the DI has put together an elaborate argument claiming that he's on their side. Not very convincing. ..dave souza, talk 00:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Luskin is one of the founders of the IDEA network. Reliability is not an issue with quotations (unless you suggest he made them up), and the quotes show that Katz used the term before Behe, and in a similar meaning (complex systems that "cannot effectively be reduced to smaller or less intricate predecessor components"). Of course, it would be better if someone could actually read the book, but the quotes do support mentioning Katz in the article. --Tgr 19:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Made them up? That's always a concern when dealing with the Discovery Institute's statements. Luskin's statements are appropriate for examples of what Luskin says and/or the Discovery Institute party line, but little else. FeloniousMonk 19:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW, evolutionnews.org is the press wing of the Discovery Institute, generally used to issue the institute's latest spin statements and proclaimations. We need to particularly circumspect about taking anything announced there at full face value. FeloniousMonk 19:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, the point made by Luskin was largely over taken by events. Luskin's post was made on November 4, 2005, a month before the ruling in the Kitzmiller trial whose evidence he is attempting to rebut. Since the claim Luskin makes was not introduced as evidence to rebut that given by Minnich and that the ruling in Kitzmiller specifically and roundly rejected Behe's claims about IC, I don't see how Luskin's claim adds anything to the article other than to serve as another example of the institute's various claims. FeloniousMonk 19:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

For clarification, Wikipedia:Reliable sources sets the standard, which Casey's blog pretty obviously doesn't meet. Quotations directly from the original in the original context and without the DI's spin could be considered, but beware of assuming a similar meaning without careful impartial analysis. ..dave souza, talk 22:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Is IC doomed?

Two of the main arguments for IC are essentially disproven here [12] Jim62sch 00:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

In this edit, user:Berend de Boer removed this section with the comment "link is dead". Whether or not the link is dead, you do not blank comments of others on a Talk page. That is vandalism and will not be tolerated.

In this specific case, even though this hyperlink no longer works directly, it still includes the necessary information to go back to the paper's archives and recover a hard-copy should anyone be interested. Rossami (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The statement is a big one to make on the basis of a link that has been removed. Does anyone have a suitable replacement link? Also, it only provides the necessary information to go back to the paper's archives and recover a hard-copy for this article only if a person has the necessary information to do that for any article. It seems to be to be a rather extensive process that might involve travel to Chicago. The actual details are not someone that just "anyone" interested would have. -Hackwrench 02:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

What is IC?

I think there's an awful lot of confusion over what IC is. All complex systems are, by definition, irreducible in the sense that they possess emergent properties which cannot be traced to individual subcomponents. The goal of architecture is to design systems which have such properties. However, such properties can also grow on their own. Mousetraps are a piss poor example obvious to anyone who has two brain cells to rub together (since they don't build themselves, they can't evolve on their own - to discuss mousetraps in the context one would have to include the systems which build them and, by doing so, one has to look at the entire history of snare building since pre-history which would include natural holes, then man made pits, then perhaps trip lines then snares etc. etc.). Business enterprise systems are not such a poor example (because they do incorporate the means by which they are built into themselves). Enterprises can have incredibly complex means of managing (or mismanaging) their intellectual capital which are a result how technology, policy, history, resources, vision, etc. work together. A website such as Amazon which starts in a garage can grow in such a way that it ends up with a knowledge management system which is irreducibly complex (such a term is redundant and demonstrates ignorance of complex systems, but I'm using it here since that's the term used to identify this concept in this article). I'd like for this article to point out in no uncertain terms that "irreducible complexity", just the term itself, makes one look like an idiot by using it since it is redundant (which would be obvious to anyone who knows what "complex" means). Those who use the term, presumably, don't know what "complex" means and, therefore, eliminate themselves from any serious discussion on the very topic they are trying to discuss.198.97.67.56 17:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

God Connection?

Irreducible complexity was championed by Behe who, in my opinion, practiced some dubious science at best. However, the term existed before him and the idea that it conveys has a solid logical basis in complexity theory, completely independant of religious fanatics...or even the origins debate as a whole for that matter. This page sounds like more of a childish tirade by someone with an obvious axe to grind, not an encyclopedia entry.

No, it doesn't. All complex systems demonstrate emergent properties and are, therefore, irreducibly complex. If the term existed before him, I'd like to know where. "Irreducible complexity" as a term is redundant and anyone who uses the term doesn't understand what "complex" means.198.97.67.56 13:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, as Behe defined it, irreducibly complex systems not only show emergent properties, but they also are made up of pieces which have no functionality independent of each other (and thus, could not have evolved). In the sense of systems having emergent properties the idea of irreducibly complex systems, the article refers to von Bertalanffy. However, this article is intentionally about Behe's use of the term. Other senses should either go in an article about complexity, emergence, or in another article with a similar name (which could be named something like irreducible complexity (XXXX), where XXXX is some suitable term that distinguishes that idea from this one). If there is material about the other sense of irreducible complexity in other articles, it might be worth creating irreducible complexity (disambiguation) and using that page to link to/list the other senses of the word. The disambiguation page could then be linked to from this page.

To the first poster, can you explain why you consider this a "childish tirade"? Can you provide some specifics about what you find wrong with the article? Thanks. Guettarda 13:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure. This entry is about as saturated as it can get with a "this is total hogwash" undertone, The very first sentence, for starters, includes the following: "Strongly disputed", "invoked", "controversially", "generally accepted" (when referencing the counter-argument), and "intervention of an intelligent designer." I mean come on! A decent entry would start out just presenting the idea for what it's worth no matter what the idea is, and then report criticisms and counter-arguments in the (already ample) criticisms section. As it stands, it's in flagrant violation of Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid.

In addition, irreducible complexity is a interesting idea, and does pose interesting challenges the theory of evolution, and this is completely independent of the "oh well there must be a God" conclusion. Evolution has unanswered questions and places where we don't fully understand the process. This is one of them and it deserves a decent entry, along with a section about how people jump to irrational conclusions based on parts of the theory we don't have entirely figured out. Also a link to Consensus_theory_of_truth I think is in order.

But I like the disambiguation you propose, that'd address most of my issues with the entry. EricHanson 21:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The fact that complex systems developed in an evolutionary process have parts which have no functionality independent of each other is a direct consequence (practically an inevitability) of what it means to have emergent properties developed in an evolutionary process.

The core issue is still that "complex", by definition, involves emergent properties.

So what. It's a term that puts emphasis on a certain facet of complexity. EricHanson 21:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

"irreducible complexity is an interesting idea and does pose interesting challenges t the theory of evolution"

No it doesn't. "Irreducible complexity" (which I still believe is a moronic term and is redundant regardless) is practically inevitable in a complex evolving system. The interesting question is "under what circumstances does it not occur?" as that is the special case.71.74.217.83 01:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC) I really should have been paying closer attention to this. "An irreducibly complex system is defined as one that could not function if it were any simpler, and therefore could not possibly have been formed by successive additions to a precursor system with the same functionality. Irreducible complexity is viewed as pseudoscience by many in the scientific community.[1]" By definition, a complex system is one which could not exist if it were any simpler. That's because it contains emergent properties which exist only in the gestalt. Lose a part and you lose the emergent properties. A simple system may consist of parts which are, themselves, complex systems, but that's a simple system. "could not possibly have been formed by successive additions to a precursor system with the same functionality" This is where the ignorance first rears its head. We are seeing complex systems evolving in front of us today. "they also are made up of pieces which have no functionality independent of each other" As I said, that's practically inevitable in a complex system going through an evolutionary process.198.97.67.56 11:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Science article

Adami C.: Evolution. Reducible complexity. Science 312:5770 (2006), 61–63 comments on Bridgham JT, Carroll SM, Thornton JW: Evolution of hormone-receptor complexity by molecular exploitation. Science 312:5770 (2006), 97–101 as being in opposition of irreducible complexity. --Rtc 05:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Reorg

I have no idea how much discussion is suppossed to go on here before changes can be made to the article. Two comments? Three? Eighteen? What's the magic number? The fact is that the edits that I made were discussed by others. I did a partial rewrite (I intend to do a complete rewrite including a couple of revisions of the work I've done so far) with a focus not on removing content (I want to remove only that content which is redundant) but in organizing it. Towards that end, the work I've done so far rests on two general principles. 1.) Focus on defining what IC is, not on the debate concerning it. That means, for example, that the article doesn't start with saying that IC is strongly disputed. It starts by saying what IC -is-, "An irreducibly complex system is defined as one that could not function if it were any simpler". The debate can be discussed in the body of the article in its own place. By the way, I believe that IC is pseudoscience, but the reason it is pseudoscience is not that it is tied to ID. IC needs to be explored on its own terms. 2.) Removing redundancy and collecting similar parts of the article into a collective location - this means, for example, that criticisms of IC go in one place and, instead of mentioning flagella, for example, in, what is it, three different places?, we actually organize the article so that all the content of those places is collected and explored intensively in one place. Reverting to a similar version simply because we haven't beaten to death in discussion all the edits that need to be made is something worthy of a Dilbert comic strip. We know what needs to be done. Let's do it.

I'm afraid that the controversy over IC is much more notable than IC itself, so the changes are largely not acceptable. Major changes of this nature must be discussed since it is such a controversial subject. Jefffire 17:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Why would it matter whether the debate over IC is much more notable than IC itself? Should the article on evolution as the origin of the species start and focus on the debate or focus on what evolution as the origin of the species is?

Evolution as a theory is much more notable than the grumbling happening in America at the moment. IC doesn't have any scientific weight, so it is important that the article presents that. Jefffire 20:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly why IC (specifically as a disproof of evolution) has no scientific weight is more important than saying that it has no scientific weight. In order to state why it has no scientific merit, it is critical that it be defined quickly and neutrally as quickly as possible in the article. Failing to do that exhibits prejudice against IC and can confusingly lead to the mistaken idea that IC lacks scientific merit because it is being prejudiced against rather than because it lacks the core requirements of things that do have scientific merit (e.g. verifiability). As for evolution being more notable, I'm curious as to what your idea of 'notable' is. 'Notable' and 'scientifically valid' are two very different things. Evolution is the best thing going right now as regards the origin of the species. That doesn't make it notable. The reason it is notable (that it, the reason it shows up in newspapers around the nation) is because of the political controversy.71.74.217.83 06:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

To the anon editor who has recently been trying to change the organization of this page:

Please don't take this the wrong way but you're not getting much response to your concerns in part because you are continuing to edit anonymously. The vast majority of experienced editors watching this page are simply ignoring you. Wikipedia has had such serious and on-going problems with anonymous editors vandalizing articles that many users have unfortunately developed a presumption that edits from anon IPs should be met with suspicion. This problem is exacerbated by the phenomenon of internet trolling where anon users insert pointless comments and edits for the perverse joy of stirring up controversy. This causes anon edits to controversial articles to be met with even more suspicion. It is unfortunate that the abuse of a few degrades our mutual trust but it is a reality of our situation.

If you want your comments to be taken seriously, please consider logging in and building a contribution history as a serious and well-intentioned editor. Your reputation as an editor on Wikipedia matters a great deal when trying to make changes to controversial issues. Once you log in and build a reputation, I think you'll find that other editors are much more willing to collaborate with you and to actively discuss concerns with you. Rossami (talk) 13:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

What I want is for people to judge edits based on content, not on who is making them. The problem with this article is that it tries to make a political statement. The claim is made that the current version is the 'consensus' version when there is no consensus. Many people here want to focus on ridiculing Behe's claims regarding IC instead of pointing out -why- they are pseudoscience. The end result is that someone who believes in IC won't be educated by this article, but will just walk away thinking that the only reason people hate it is that they are prejudiced against it. By doing so, this article promotes IC and I find that distasteful.

What I want is to write a scientific article on IC, not an editorial. What I want is something that belongs in an encyclopedia, not a sound byte on CNN. I want an article which analytically, dispassionately, and without bias explores what IC as a counter-arguement to evolution is and its lack of scientific merit instead of focusing on the politics of judging content (including within the IC community) based on who writes it and why they might have done so.198.97.67.56 14:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Try taking one specific bit, and post here what you percieve as the problem with it, and your suggested change. Your posts here on the talk page are so vague and all-encompassing it is difficult to gain a clear understanding of what precisely you feel needs improvement and why. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem is bigger than can be handled one bit at a time. Fundamentally, the whole article needs a reorg. To deal with the things that have a smaller scope first is like painting a house with a bad foundation. Now, if you want to discuss an outline by which we can organize this article, I'm game for that.

I think we should start with a disclaimer saying what this article is not (ie. that it focuses on IC as an arguement against evolution) and pointing to an article on complexity for related subjects. I think we should then define exactly what IC is in as neutral of terms as possible with heavy reference to the literature. Only then should we mention Behe's claim. Then we discuss the pros and cons of the purported scientific merit of his claims - again, as neutrally as possible (I realize its like discussing the scientific merits of phrenology in neutral terms, but doing this right will take the wind out of the sales of the ID group). Then we discuss the social history, both the political struggles and what the law says and has said - preferably in a chronological order. Finally, we have our conclusion and related links. 198.97.67.56 16:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Your first propsed change is that the article start with a disclaimer saying what this article is not, but then your following statement is what this article is. Please clarify. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

By definition, all complex systems are irreducible. This article specifically focuses on "whether IC is a disproof of evolution." Comments such as "IC is disproven" aren't strictly true. Comments such as "IC does not disprove evolution" are true. We need to make it clear that when discussing IC in this article, we are specifically talking about IC as a disproof of evolution.198.97.67.57 16:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

By definition, all complex systems are complex. Do you have a cite for your assertion that "By definition, all complex systems are irreducible."? KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:V, WP:RS for help with this. Also, as long as you are reading up on policy, please pay careful attention to WP:NPOV which is non-negotiable. Our aim is an accurate article, most emphatically not to "take the wind out of the sales [sic] of the ID group". KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV does not prevent us from saying that something has no scientific merit. If it did, we'd have to treat alchemy equivalent to chemistry. Something which, I'm pretty sure, was never intended. The ID crowd passes on pseudoscience as science. Writing a neutral fact-based article on a scientific topic (IC) will result in achieving both NPOV and taking the wind out of sales of the ID group. In fact, doing so would be a great deal more NPOV than the currrent article. Also, a complex system is one whose value derives from the assocations between its parts, not from the parts in and of themselves (see Complex Systems. To deconstruct such a system is to lose what gives it value (the associations between its parts). As a consequence, complex systems are irreducible.

(reduce) At the risk of being redundant: Do you have a cite for that? KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Try this one Complex System. I think I might have some powerpoint slides from Dr. Thomas (my intro to Systems Architecture professor) which make the same point, but I'm not sure about the copyright on those.71.74.217.83 22:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

(reduce indent) Looks red to me, 71.74.217.83. Try Complex system, which doesn't show a clear relationship to your argument. From what you say it appears that your definition of irreducible is very different from Behe's. ...dave souza, talk 16:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

In addition to not supporting 71.74.217.83's argument, Complex system is a Wikipedia article. Self-references are not allowed. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Intro Problems

Quoting the last two paragraphs of the intro, with problematic elements bolded:

In 2001, Michael Behe admitted that his work had a "defect" and does not actually address "the task facing natural selection." Furthermore, the concept of irreducible complexity is ignored or rejected by the majority of the scientific community. This rejection stems from the following: the concept utilises an argument from ignorance, Behe fails to provide a testable hypothesis, and there is a lack of evidence in support of the concept. As such, irreducible complexity is seen by the supporters of evolutionary theory as an example of creationist pseudoscience, amounting to a God of the gaps argument.

In the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, Behe testified under oath that irreducible complexity did not rule out known evolutionary mechanisms, and that there existed no peer-reviewed articles supporting his argument that certain complex molecular structures are "irreducibly complex." The result of the trial was the ruling that "intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature."

• The defect which Behe addressed was that the the task he had outlined for the falsification of his IC hypothesis wasn't neatly symmetrical with his definition of an irreducibly complex system (and it need not be symmetrical, as he wasn't suggesting a method of falsifying the existence of IC systems but of their evolutionary potential). This flaw obviously isn't a flaw in the hypothesis itself. Additionally, successfully executing the task that Behe outlined would indeed falsify his hypothesis, which posits that IC systems do not evolve through random mutations. The defect was essentially one of style. Editors have argued in the past that the current formulation in the intro is extremely misleading (as it implies that Behe believes that his IC hypothesis doesn't even challenge natural selection after all). These editors were accused of "whitewashing", and the "defect" in question was called a "fatal flaw" and a "huge, gaping flaw". It was pointed out in that discussion that Behe's comments should be presented as he intended to present them, regardless of whether anyone else thinks that the defect was major. The only response was that Behe's didn't want his argument "blown out of the water". Regardless of whatever people think his motives were, his comments shouldn't be distorted. Resolving the article's "defect" defect has already received consensus support over three months ago, but the "defect" defect remains.

• When listing the objections of IC's critics, the objections should not be presented as fact. To follow WP:NPOV, the wording must make clear that their objections are only their own claims.

• "Behe testified under oath that irreducible complexity did not rule out known evolutionary mechanisms." This might imply that he reluctantly testified that IC doesn't rule out the position that natural selection is the sole mechanism in the development of organic life. It should be clarified that Behe actually testified that he believes that the development of all IC systems required non-natural mechanisms.

• "...that there existed no peer-reviewed articles supporting his argument." This might imply that he was forced to admit under oath that his argument came from the proverbial ether or his own unsupported conjecture. This isn't what Behe testified. He testified that he was unaware of his hypothesis appearing in any peer-review journal, but he also testified that many peer-reviewed articles present research and conclusions that support his argument. He testified that his argument is based on natural and obvious inferences from peer-reviewed research. Whether you agree with this or not is irrelevant. Just clarify what he said.

• "The result of the trial was the ruling that 'intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature'." This info belongs in the intelligent design article, not this one. It certainly shouldn't be featured in the intro to this article! What's next? Putting a sentence about general criticisms of pet ownership in the intro to gerbil?

When I tried to correct these problems, the corrections were reverted as "considerable whitewash." Hmm. HKT^Talk 16:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree; it was a whitewash. The article is correct and well-supported as it stands. Your changes clearly favored the ID perspective with undue weight and too much credence. Behe's testimony is unambiguous and the quotes given are verbatim. The Kitzmiller ruling is absolutely relevent to this article, IC being a nearly exclusive ID argument. FeloniousMonk 16:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• "The article is correct and well-supported as it stands." You counter my arguments with unsubstantiated assertions. References that are presented to support content in the article actually refute that content or implications deriving from the presentation of the content.
• "Your changes clearly favored the ID perspective with undue weight and too much credence." Just because you say this does not make it true. My changes affected misleading info that was presented to favor the anti-IC perspective.
• "Behe's testimony is unambiguous and the quotes given are verbatim." The testimony is indeed unambiguous. It is the selective presentation of the quotes that obfuscates the reality.
• "The Kitzmiller ruling is absolutely relevent to this article, IC being a nearly exclusive ID argument." It is only indirectly relevant, and it is inappropriate to place it in the intro of an article that is far more specific than the target of the ruling. HKT^Talk 19:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Examples of irreducibly complex structures?

This article's actual list of structures that IDers have claimed are irreducibly complex is pitifully small: only two examples are given, one of them (Blood clotting cascade) only one line long. Why aren't some of the more famous examples of "irreducibly complex" organs listed, like the evolution of the eye? -Silence 04:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You've added evolution of the eye, but from my limited knowledge the ID proponents who've produced this "concept" accept the evolution of the eye, and so this properly belongs in the Forerunners section under Darwin. However others using the term may still use the example: a citation would be appropriate. ..dave souza, talk 08:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The eye is becoming a major subsection: do any "irreducible complexity" proponents actually use this example? ...dave souza, talk 08:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Every ID supporter and creationist I've ever met has used the eye as the main example of claimed "irreducible complexity" and design. I don't know of any reliable way to test how common it is on Google or anything (though "intelligent design" + "eye" gets around 750 times more Google hits than "intelligent design" + "flagella"), but it seems to be that the eye is the most common example of "irreducible complexity" cited by laypeople. It's noted by Answers in Genesis as a prominent IC argument (alongside the flagellum and the "complex cell"), and numerous book-reviews of Darwin's Black Box (both positive and negative) quote Behe discussing the eye. Even if it wasn't one of his more prominent examples, it's clearly an immensely noteworthy and common example within the movement in general. -Silence 08:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've answered my own question and amended the article to suit, though you may wish to reposition the reference to their arguments or add a refutation. The IC argument is evidently propagated by YECs and OECs as well as by the IDers themselves, and I've added creationism to the intro to make this clearer. Apologies, but I'd picked up the idea that the eye was too well explained and ID made more of flagella and blood clotting. ..dave souza, talk 10:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thought you might move things around! That's looking a lot better, just had two links to the same reference which I've unified. It's also in the external links section, which seems good to me as it covers several topics. ..dave souza, talk 10:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

IC definition

I'm still uncertain that Behe's definition of IC is stated correctly. ""irreducibly complex" system is defined as one that could not function if it were any simpler, and therefore could not possibly have been formed by successive additions to a precursor system with the same functionality." I believe the definition is ""irreducibly complex" system is defined as one that could not function if it were any simpler" and "..and therefore could not possibly have been formed by successive additions to a precursor system with the same functionality" is his conclusion, not part of the definition itself.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.97.67.56 (talk • contribs) 11:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Experimental evidence concerning irreducible complexity

Bahe's claim is very hard to test directly, as it requires knowledge of past protein-protein interactions. However, a 2006 paper in Science (Volume:312, Page:97-101) uses evolutionary theory coupled with bioinformatics to physically reconstruct ancient proteins and test their interactions. These experiments directly address the concept of irreducible complexity and show that slow gradual changes in pre-existing protein systems can generate more complex interactions. Here is the abstract from the paper entitles Evolution of Hormone-Receptor Complexity by Molecular Exploitation:

According to Darwinian theory, complexity evolves by a stepwise process of elaboration and optimization under natural selection. Biological systems composed of tightly integrated parts seem to challenge this view, because it is not obvious how any element’s function can be selected for unless the partners with which it interacts are already present. Here we demonstrate how an integrated molecular system—the specific functional interaction between the steroid hormone aldosterone and its partner the mineralocorticoid receptor—evolved by a stepwise Darwinian process. Using ancestral gene resurrection, we show that, long before the hormone evolved, the receptor’s affinity for aldosterone was present as a structural by-product of its partnership with chemically similar, more ancient ligands. Introducing two amino acid changes into the ancestral sequence recapitulates the evolution of present-day receptor specificity. Our results indicate that tight interactions can evolve by molecular exploitation—recruitment of an older molecule, previously constrained for a different role, into a new functional complex.

I think this finding should be included in the Irreducible Complexity section. For one, it addresses the fact that apparent irreducible protein-protein interactions can be explained by gradual amino acid changes, but, more importantly, it shows that scientific work is being done investigating the issues in evolution that Bahe has brought up. --Roland Deschain 04:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Mark Perakh's argument

I added a link to Mark Perakh's essay, "Does irreducible complexity imply Intelligent Design?"

The article is decidedly non-mainstream, but I decided to add the link because of its unique perspective on the discussion.

Typically, ID proponents argue that there is IC, and therefore ID, while opponents of the argument attack it by arguing that there is no IC. Perakh, in contrast to either of these two camps, argues that IC does not imply ID. I felt this "third camp" merits a link, despite not being mainstream. I hope I have acted correctly. Capedia 05:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to an interesting and informative essay. In my opinion it's well worthwhile, despite a plague of pop-ups and intrusive ads - turn off sound before viewing! ..dave souza, talk 08:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Perakh's argument a good one, and is really the one that gets to the heart of the philosophy of science response to ID. On the anti-ID camp there is the problem that Behe has changed his definition of IC several times. His first version "a system having multiple interlocking parts such that if not all of the parts are present the system can not perform its function" to "having multiple interlocking parts such that if not all of the parts are present there is no selective advantage" to "having multiple interlocking parts such that it could not have evolved." The existance of systems satisfying the first definition are clearly apparent and common in nature. The existance of systems satisfying the second definition might exist, but we really can't say for sure since it would require very detailed knowledge of the environments in the distant past, and the 3rd is just nonsense. There is no such thing as a system that cannot, in principle, evolve. In the worst case scenario of there being absolutely *no* selective advantage to a subpart, evolution degenerates to a random walk. It certainly unlikely for a random walk to find anything useful, but to say a random walk absolutely can't find something useful is simply wrong. --Romanpoet