Talk:Irreducible complexity

This talk page is to discuss the text, photographs, format, grammar, etc of the article itself and not the inherent worth of Irreducible complexity. See WP:NOT. If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of Irreducible complexity or promote Irreducible complexity please do so at talk.origins or other fora. This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time in accordance with Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#How to use article talk pages: Keep on topic.

Template:WikiProject Intelligent design

Baylor paper on this topic

Dave Souza reverted my addition to the text using a recently published paper by a Baylor University medical professor who gave his opinion on the validity of the irreducible complexity topic. Now, I believe Dr. Kuhn's opinion is significant, because he is independent of the Discovery Institute, but represents academic opinion on the topic. Just the kind of source we should be eager to use for this article to explain the topic. I respect Dave's opinion, of course, if not his adept and nimble use of the revert button, so we need to reach some kind of compromise on the use of that source. Thoughts? Cla68 (talk) 12:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

RSN discussion. Cla68 (talk) 13:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

FTN discussion. Cla68 (talk) 13:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

1. [I]rreducible complexity is a weakness in the theory of Darwinian evolution..."Functions and corresponding specifications of the DNA code are too inconceivably complex to have arisen by accidental mutation or change." Is this a contrary opinion, or is simply a restatement of the opinions expressed by Behe (and others) in the body of the article? We don't write articles by simply adding a new section to an existing article for each new source we find. Especially when they have nothing new to add to the topic.
2. Kuhn explained that when John Hunter and Darwin formulated their theories... How is John Hunter relevant to this discussion? What impact has Hunter had on the development of modern evolutionary theory? For that matter, why is Darwin relevant?
3. Why a... paper published by Baylor? It was published in Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings. And why link to the Google Docs version when the original article is freely available online? Doing so manages to conceal the fact that Kuhn sits on the editorial board of the journal and is, in fact, a former editor of the journal, and that the journal chose to publish two rebuttals of Kuhn's article...something that is rather remarkable, and certainly undercuts the article's (already shaky) credibility. Guettarda (talk) 15:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

One more thing: Thus, according to Kuhn "Such changes would require far more than could be expected from random mutation and natural selection". To begin with, while Hunter has been described as being ahead of his time in his evolutionary ideas,[1] I don't think anyone (even Kuhn) claims that he was aware of natural selection. As for mutation - although Kuhn claims that "John Hunter proposed a gradual formation of species through mutation" and that "the basic tenets of Charles Darwin [sic] suggested that random mutations occur". Darwin, of course, had no idea how variation was generated, and I can't imagine that Hunter knew much more than Darwin. The fact that Kuhn doesn't seem to be aware of this is rather damaging to the credibility of his article. Guettarda (talk) 15:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you agree that the Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings is a peer-reviewed, academic, medical journal? Did my text give Kuhn's opinion in Wikipedia's voice, or was I clear that it was Kuhn's opinion? Cla68 (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Before asking any more questions, why not answer mine: Is this a contrary opinion, or is it just a restatement of opinions already expressed in the article? And, as I pointed out, you did not, in fact, report what Kuhn said accurately. You appear to have misrepresented what he said. Guettarda (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

It's an opinion piece by a non-expert in a journal with no competence in the area of evolutionary biology. The journal does publish peer reviewed medical papers, but this is not one of them (there is nothing to peer review, as it is not a research paper or review). There is no reason to believe that Dr. Kuhn's opinion had made any impact outside of the creationist community. Even as a creationist, Kuhn appears to be not notable except for this very paper. n short, Dr. Kuhn's opinion id not significant. Mentioning it would grossly violate WP:WEIGHT. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like you are saying that Irreducible complexity is a valid theory on evolutionary biology, because you are arguing that only opinions from experts in that field should be included in this article. Do I understand correctly that this is what you are saying? Also, the opening sentence in this article states that the concept comes from the Discovery Institute as part of their campaign to push ID. This article is from an academic outside of the Institute, so do we need to change the wording in the intro? Cla68 (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Then get your hearing checked, because I said nothing of the sort. And of course we don't have to change the wording of the intro, because Dr. Kuhn's opinion is not significant. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Rather curious about why the fact that Kuhn isn't affiliated with the DI (which may or may not be the case - I haven't checked) would have any bearing on the intro to this article. There's nothing about the DI in the intro to this article. Odd. Guettarda (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Being an oncologist in no way qualifies you to comment on evolutionary biology. Since he's not a biologist he's not an expert in the field. N^oformation ^Talk 22:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Claims of Non-Neutrality from the Non-Neutral, a.k.a., Double-Standards for Darwin

Hello,

I'm writing to report a case of non-neutrality from the user SÆdon. After editing the page on Irreducible complexity to make it more neutral, my changes were reverted, and I received the following message from the aforementioned user:

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Irreducible complexity appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this. Thank you. ID and the like is virtually universally disregarded and is not taken seriously by the scientific community. To say that only "some" of the scientific community is giving WP:UNDUE weight to a minority position, a position based on theology, not science SÆdon 20:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm fairly new here to Wikipedia, but I understand the basic rules regarding article editing, particularly involving mandatory neutrality. I'm confident that none of my additions were non-neutral in any way which biased the article. They were criticisms of criticisms of irreducible complexity -- precisely the sort of thing expected for a neutral, fair-and-balanced article on irreducible complexity. Surely neutrality requires that both arguments for and against controversial ideas be presented, no? What the actions of SÆdon and the other watchdogs of any article involving the Darwinian evolution vs. intelligent design controversy say is that only one side of the issue, theirs, deserves to be presented. This is textbook neutrality -- exactly what Wikipedia strives to avoid.

Notice the non-neutrality in Saedon's message:

ID and the like is virtually universally disregarded and is not taken seriously by the scientific community.

This is an example of either dishonesty of ignorance on Saedon's part. Intelligent design is one of the hottest topics in science today precisely because it is taken seriously by the so-called "scientific community." They take it seriously because it's a very powerful, evidence-based argument that poses a great threat to the current orthodoxy, Darwinian evolution. This is why Saedon and the like watch over any and all articles regarding this debate, making sure they remain heavily biased towards Darwinian evolution, while reverting both arguments for I.D. and criticisms of criticisms against I.D., as happened in my case.

To say that only "some" of the scientific community is giving WP:UNDUE weight to a minority position, a position based on theology, not science

To say that only "some" of the scientific community views I.D. as pseudoscience is a factual statement. While they may be in the minority, there are many members of the scientific community who agree wholeheartedly that I.D. is science. To close your eyes, shove your fingers in your ears, and pretend that these scientists do not exist -- as Saedon has done -- is intellectual dishonesty. To then permeate Wikipedia with that intellectual dishonesty is unacceptable. Notice, too, Saedon's non-neutral opinion that intelligent design is theology, rather than science.

I refute that claim.

I'm atheist regarding the Gods of any organized religion, and yet I fully accept the scientific-basis of intelligent design. It's no more theological than is big bang cosmology, or even its counterpart, Darwinian evolution. While all three views may have (a)theistic implications, the argumentation and observation behind all three are strictly secular and scientific. For Saedon to baldly assert that intelligent design is theology, and use this bald assertion to further justify his non-neutrality, watchdog-like behavior is unacceptable.

Given that non-neutral editors such as Saedon are given what appears to be total control over intelligent design-related articles, is it any wonder these articles are rated so poorly, and Wikipedia's trustworthiness regarding the subject is in such serious jeopardy? As of this writing, the article on irreducible complexity has scores of a lowly 2.8 in trustworthiness, and an appalling 1.8 in objectivity. Is this considered acceptable? I sincerely hope not, for Wikipedia's sake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DawkinsFearsCraig (talk • contribs) 21:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I expect this situation to be dealt with accordingly; fairly, without bias, and absent bald assertions and loaded claims that encourage, if not outright justify, that bias.

Thank you.

--DawkinsFearsCraig (talk) 21:42, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's take this one step at a time. You say "Intelligent design is one of the hottest topics in science today precisely because it is taken seriously by the so-called "scientific community"" Can you point to current research on ID/IR published in a reputable scientific journal? SÆdon^talk 21:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Saedon,

As you know, or at least should know, peer-review has become a very politicized process, not just for I.D., but for all non-mainstream scientific views. Casey Luskin has an excellent articleoutstanding article, heavily burrowed from a paper by physicist Frank Tipler, which details this, including direct quotes from multiple Nobel Prize winners on the deep flaws of the peer-review process. Even if the journal's referees, themselves, would be willing to publish pro-I.D. research, the fear of backlash -- even boycotts -- directed towards both themselves and their journals, surely prevents them from doing so.

You must understand, when dealing with intelligent design, we're dealing with something that causes nothing less than embarrassing, childish, outrageous, emotional outbursts from its detractors, including many scientists (the Bloggingheads incident comes to mind, where many scientists attempted to boycott Bloggingheads simply because they allowed Michael Behe on to discuss his views). These detractors, of course, include many Wikipedia contributors. I strongly suspect that includes you, which is I why you make such a suspect editor regarding this subject, and why none of my words, as reasonable as they may be, will have any effect on dogmatic thinking.

With all of this said, the Discovery Institute keeps a page archiving the many pro-I.D. articles which have been able to penetrate the politicized wall of orthodoxy that has sullied the peer-review process. The number is currently over 50, and continually growing.

Of course, once the objection that I.D. has no peer-reviewed publications in support of it has been met, the goalposts will be moved to the claim that, (a) they're not good enough, (b) there's not enough, or (c) a combination of a and b. Casey Luskin, again, has fantastic article, entitled "Answering Objections about Discovery Institute's Peer-Review Page," that addresses some of these goalpost shifts (this is the part where you ignore the arguments and attack Casey Luskin the person).

Let me also add that every paper which further unveils a level of sophistication in the cell, more design principles, function for something once thought to be junk, etc., weighs support to the notion that life was designed, and that the Darwinian view is based on ignorance. A couple of articles which come to mind are James A. Shapiro's Natural Genetic Engineering, which shows that evolution is the programmed result of the brilliantly designed technology located inside the cell, and Michael Sherman's Universal Genome theory, a view which demonstrates that evolution was a front-loaded event (read: evolution was programmed).

Anyway, none of this will matter to you or any of your fellow ideologues. That's not the intentions of my writing. I'm writing for the neutral editors here at Wikipedia, with the hope that something can be done about the deplorable level of non-neutrality, and, yes, dishonesty, amongst I.D.-related topics. These articles may be the single most biased series of articles on all of Wikipedia. Many of the articles on I.D.-related researchers and supporters are so biased as to be bordering on slander. Something needs to be done about it.

--DawkinsFearsCraig (talk) 23:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that represents the mainstream of scientific thought and peer review is our gold standard - this is certainly not the place to argue that the peer review process is flawed as these types of arguments aren't relevant on WP (except maybe on the policy page). So I'll ask again, can you point to current research on ID/IR published in a reputable scientific journal? Neither of the last two sources you mentioned (Shapiro and Sherman) seem to be discussing ID or IR so they aren't appropriate for this article (neither "irreducible complexity" or "intelligent design" are present in the texts). What you should be looking for is something published in a journal like Science or Nature that discusses research into ID or IR specifically. I understand that you may be reading those sources to conclude that they leave open the posibillity of a designer, but that's not what the sources are talking about and so any such conclusion would be WP:OR, which is not allowed here .

Lastly, I'm not going to deal with assumptions of bad faith and person attacks such as "none of this will matter to you or any of your fellow ideologues," we can discuss the topic without you ever saying anything about me and me never saying anything about you, so stick to the content or I won't be responding in the future and your edits will be reverted and ignored. Please see our policy on personal attacks. SÆdon^talk 23:56, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Amazing the response you get we you intentionally fabricate a web of lies and deceit for the express purpose of forcing your religion on others ...and focusing on children no less. There is the truth of it. Now go away and find some sources that help expand knowledge. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed changes to the introduction

A proposal to alter: "Evolutionary biologists have shown that such systems can evolve,[6][7] and that Behe's examples constitute an argument from ignorance.[8]" to "... have provided models that show how these systems could have evolved ..."

The reference appeals to an "inference to the best explanation" (otherwise known as an abductive argument); something that cannot, on epistemological criteria, qualify as a directly verified scientific fact, as is implied by the wording as it is ("have shown that such systems can evolve").109.144.210.169 (talk) 23:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, the "Irreducible complexity" argument is that it is impossible (or, at least, highly unlikely) that an IC structure could evolve by natural means alone. All that is needed to show a problem with this argument is that evolution of some IC structures by natural means is possible (or, that it is not highly unlikely), rather than showing that it did evolve, much less to establish that as a "directly verified scientific fact". TomS TDotO (talk) 11:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The sentence in question is not a formal overview of the arguments for and against either proposition ("IC systems can evolve" vs "IC systems can't evolve"), but simply a description of the peer-reviewed work that has been done to support the former proposition. Ultimately, an abductive argument cannot be said to "show" the truth value of any independent proposition, for the very same reason that an hypothesis cannot be said to be proof of any independent proposition. To claim otherwise would be unscientific and poor epistemology - falling outside of scholarly standards. The models or hypotheses that are derived from abductive reasoning need further verification by direct observation, or empirico-induction/deduction, before one can claim that it "shows" proof of any truth value commitment.109.144.245.64 (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

If there are no further substantive objections, I'll implement the changes as described. Note also that this topic was also discussed in the recently deleted thread in this section. 217.39.15.126 (talk) 11:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

My changes above were reverted by Saedon, using the justification "Which language does the source use?". The following appear to be the quotes from the abstract that he may be alluding to [emphasis added]:

"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." ... "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."

1. If we are obliged to strictly follow the language of the reference and ignore clearly inferred epistemology and pragmatics, the introduction still warrants an amendment to: "Evolutionary biologists have indicated that such systems can evolve through a number of hypothetical models."

2. The problematic word is 'shown.' Without an allusion to 'models' or 'postulations', 'shown', by itself, implies empirico-induction rather than the abduction that is directly alluded to by the reference. One cannot appeal to the 'show' in the first quote to justify this, given that the quote in question alludes to the empirical basis -prior- to the abductive inference to 'exploitation/recruitment'.109.144.236.115 (talk) 12:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Two problems: the language you put in does not accurately reflect the sources, and gives undue weight to Behe's fringe views on the topic. I've reviewed the sources and amended the wording accordingly. . dave souza, talk 14:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Your second objection is non-sequitur, given that the first half of the sentence is simply about reporting the findings of the study. The view of Behe's ideas as 'fringe' is carried by the second half of the sentence. Your first objection is also indefensible, given that I've simply paraphrased, in context, the summative statement of the abstract from the source reference. Regardless, I'm happy with your new version of the introduction (with its use of the modal verb 'could' to represent abductive uncertainties), given that it closely resembles my original proposal on the thread that was deleted. 109.144.236.115 (talk) 14:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Changes to "Stated Examples"

I'd like to discuss some changes to the "Stated Examples" section.

On one level, the title "Stated Examples" seems awkward and ambiguous. If this weren't a controversial topic, "Examples of Irreducible Complexity" would make perfect sense, but since the validity of IC is itself in question, that title won't do. Instead I'm thinking along the lines of "Illustrations of IC" that is more non-committal regarding the validity of IC. I would like to hear other suggestions, if you have them.

On another level, there's some language that violates NPOV. I'm referring to language like, "In an often misquoted[57] passage" and "Yet this observation was merely a rhetorical device for Darwin" that deliberately undermines IC, while not actually addressing IC directly. Both statements are examples of editorial overreach. The first statement implies that Behe and other IC writers misquote the passage, without actually saying or demonstrating that they did indeed misquote it. There's probably a name for this logical fallacy, I just don't know it. Also, the fact that the statement is cited is irrelevant. The second statement is inappropriate because it implies that Darwin's ability to predict his opponent's objection and argue against said objection makes Darwin automatically correct. The rhetorical device, as referenced, is a prebuttal, where the author preemptively argues against a probable objection. The wiki editor that wrote "merely a rhetorical device" wanted to handwave the argument away without actually having to address it directly. Here's another gem: the wiki editor also wrote that Darwin had a "Very good understanding of the evolution of the eye" followed by "He then proceeded to roughly map out a likely course for evolution using examples of gradually more complex eyes of various species".

So, hopefully you'll agree that something needs to be done, which brings me to my third change I want to discuss.

As you'll remember, this article is about IC and this section has to do with examples that are used to illustrate IC (Hey, maybe that could be the subheading?). However, as the text reads, each subsection begins with a backhanded explanation of IC's illustration and then quickly transitions into a description of evolutionary theory. Please don't misunderstand me, there's a time and a place for evolution within wikipedia (within this article, even!), but not in the portion of the article that should be summarizing the commonly used illustrations of IC. Perhaps this text (sans editorializing) could be moved to the "response of the scientific community" section.

Please let me know what you think of these suggested changes. I am bringing these changes to the talk page because I know I would get reverted if I just went ahead and made the changes. Consequently, if I don't hear much back and then get reverted once I make the changes, I'm going to be ticked. Higgyrun3 (talk) 07:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Response of the scientific community

This should be worded differently. It is phrased as if ID is not supported by any members of the scientific community, indeed it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Overseer19XX (talk • contribs) 23:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

See scientific community, a few fringe figures with no published papers showing such "support" don't get wp:undue weight. . dave souza, talk 23:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

What about these papers http://www.discovery.org/a/2640 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.158.0.73 (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Irreducible complexity addressed by Duke U. scientist

Daniel W. McShea of Duke University and Wim Hordijk have just published "Complexity by Subtraction" in the April, 2013 Evolutionary Biology. Looks like Hordijk put it on the internet for the world to see. Dawkins calls it pseudoscience. Odd that Duke would be supporting substandard research.

Opinions on including in article? Yopienso (talk) 05:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I've read the paper. I don't see anything pseudoscientific about it, nor does it support "irreducible complexity". Quite the opposite. If anything, it's a rebuttal.

It's basically arguing that some complex things that seem hard to explain by a gradual accrual of elements may be better explained by streamlining of an initially more complex system. As they themselves say, there's nothing undarwinian about their explanation and it relies heavily on natural selection. They also say that generating complex systems is easy, but that streamlining for efficiency is favored by natural selection.

Actually, nothing terribly new about it at all, as the authors themselves state, except perhaps their computer modeling. Nothing really controversial, except perhaps in their desire to formulate some type of general biological "principle" or "law" out of it, which to me seems a bit unsophisticated and naive, even a little weird, especially when they start generalizing into things like languages and economics. The stuff on what they call the Zero Force Evolutionary Law is either childish and banal, or I'm just not seeing what's supposed to be novel and useful about it. But then, I'm not an expert on scientific philosophy, whereas McShea apparently is.

I can't figure out why it ended up in the pseudoscience section on Dawkins' website, but that's hardly evidence that Dawkins considers it pseudoscience. Probably a classification mistake by someone who maintains the website, or because it was relevant to a pseudoscientific concept. Or perhaps it has to do with the philosophical stuff.

All in all, it has little to do with the subject of the present article, and I don't see any point in mentioning it. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Dawkins' followers pounced on McShea. But, as you say, he does NOT support irreducible complexity, as his numerous publications over the past few years about his studies and views on complexity attest. What I consider notable is that he addresses irreducible complexity rather than ignoring or dismissing it. That's why I thought maybe it should be mentioned in this article.

I don't understand why you say it has little to do with the subject of the present article; the authors included the term in their key words and the introduction devotes an entire paragraph to the skeptic notion and ends with this sentence: "Finally, we discuss some implications of this alternative route for the so-called irreducible complexity problem." This is found in Section 5.1, where the term "irreducible complexity" is not used, but the "argument from design" is, citing to Dembski and Ruse, 2004. Yopienso (talk) 17:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Before seeing Dominus Vobisdu's comment, I read through the paper and the mention of it on Dawkins' site, and came to the same conclusion. Thanks for pointing it out, but it seems to be really a discussion within an evolutionary frame, which suggests that it presents an approach "for evolutionists answering modern challenges to evolution, from the argument from design" to the problem of “irreducible complexity." Thus it's another answer to IC, but not a particularly novel one – we already cover the scaffolding and arches concept shown in Section 5, this seems to predate ID, let alone IC. It really doesn't seem to be significant in relation to this article, but maybe if others pick it up and publish comments on it.. . . . dave souza, talk 17:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I originally saw this is when my son-in-law drew my attention to an unsigned article in an online science magazine. But it credits this far more reliable one written by one Robin Ann Smith, PhD. Both she and the NESCent have ties to Duke U., but McShea's name doesn't show up on the list of scientists involved with NESCent.

My opinion is that showing a credible answer to irreducible complexity by a credible scientist has a place in the "Response of the scientific community" section of this article. Yopienso (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Looking again, we've got a paragraph on the arch issue without a citation: this would actually make a good citation for that. I'm a bit uneasy with the presentation of this as a new idea, am sure I've seen the arch concept before but can't currently find where. Oddly enough, the author Dan McShea appears to have been co-author on a 2008 paper which covered jumps in size rather than complexity, and was misrepresented by creationists.[2] So, something to review. It might also be a useful citation for the Falsifiability and experimental evidence section covering computer science. . dave souza, talk 19:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, Of Mousetraps and Men: Behe on Biochemistry | NCSE covers the arch pretty well, New Mexicans for Science and Reason discuss both the arch and Dembski's rather convoluted answer to it, Refuting Michael Behe's "Irreducible Complexity" with Roman Arches by Tom Schneider lists various papers discussing it, including Cairns-Smith. McShea does seem to be an addition to the computing aspect. . dave souza, talk 19:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

"The removal of unused components with no essential function, like the natural process where rock underneath a natural arch is removed, can produce irreducibly complex structures without requiring the intervention of a designer." From Irreducible complexity#Falsifiability and experimental evidence. TomS TDotO (talk) 04:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to all. I've just added the recent article as a ref. The other ref is to a 1985 book. Did not edit text. Yopienso (talk) 08:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Major article for Evolution of the Blood Clotting Cascade

Is there a "full article" for the Evolution of the Blood Clotting Cascade, as there is for the evolution of the eye and flagellum? Have we discovered enough about variations (the fish that uses only 6 proteins instead of 10) to hypothesize how the could have structure evolved? Jimw338 (talk) 02:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Coagulation seems to be focussed on human blood clotting, and could do with work on the evolutionary development and the different mechanisms in other animals. A specific article would be worthwhile, if someone can look out the sources. . dave souza, talk 03:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Attempted deletion of a false statement.

I attempted to delete a statement under Stated Examples/Flagella: "Experiments have shown that many proteins can be deleted from the flagellar apparatus without destroying its function,[75][76] even though its activity may be reduced in some of these cases."

My edit was promptly reversed.

The problem with this statement is that the two papers cited do not support the argument being made. The deletions recorded in these papers have nothing to do with the 40+ proteins that compose the flagellar apparatus. Instead, these deletions have to do with genes influencing flagellar behavior. For example, one paper discusses deletions in genes involved in swarming motility, or the ability of e.coli to adhere to one another in multi-cellular rafts. Other gene deletions involve genes related to supplying energy to the flagellar motor.

If the flagellum were comparable to a car motor, the deletions discussed in these papers would be equivalent to removing the steering wheel or clogging the fuel filter. These deletions have nothing to do with the potential results if one of the core proteins that make up the motor were removed.

I challenge the author of this statement to find one quote in these papers that supports his assertion.

Rooples (talk) 23:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Conflicting and confusing statements.

Under Stated Examples/Flagella there are two sentences: "The needle's base has ten elements in common with the flagellum, but it is missing forty of the proteins that make a flagellum work.[70] Thus, this system negates the claim that taking away any of the flagellum's parts would render it useless."

The author(s) seem to state that:

1) The flagellum requires 40 more proteins than the needle in order to operate as a flagellum. 2) This proves that the flagellum can still operate if it is missing those 40 proteins.

If the flagellum requires 40 additional proteins than possessed by the needle in order to become an operational flagellum - this means the flagellum is not operational if it is missing those proteins. Removing the 40 proteins does not turn the flagellum into the needle of the secretory system. Firstly, the proteins may be similar, but they do not exactly match the mechanical needs of the secretory system. Secondly, the cell requires detailed instructions on how to build either the secretory system or the flagellum.

To state that these presumed homologies disprove IC is to assume the theory in question - that random mutations alone can sufficiently alter proteins and develop blueprints for new systems.

Rooples (talk) 00:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

These homologies disprove the IC claim that any simpler system is non-functional and so could not evolve under natural selection. The needle has a function, it's just not a function as a propellor. The "detailed instructions" are DNA, and are not the result of "random mutations alone" – natural selection provides non-random selection of variations that have some useful effect on survival and successful reproduction, and so the "instructions" come from the environment of the organism. Your "theory in question" seems to be a strawman, with some resemblance to neutral theory which of course may show a contributing effect. . dave souza, talk 02:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Still, the evolution pathway must involve the transition of a system that provides one function to a system that provides a new function. This is not a single stepped transition. It likely would include a gene duplication, modification of protein subunits, and modification of the genetic code for assembling the system. This is essentially the claim of IC - that multiple steps are needed to get from one system to the next, and some of the steps have no selective advantage (see Behe quote at beginning of the article). Homologies do not prove that the gene duplication, protein modification, and changes in assembly code can give the current system a stepwise selective advantage before the new system is complete.

"Homology does nothing to demonstrate that the necessary transitions are evolutionarily feasible (Gauger and Axe, 2011), and it has been shown that the process of gene duplication and recruitment, as a source of evolutionary novelty, is extremely limited (Axe, 2010)." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/03/kelly_hughes_an069881.html#sthash.WDsCvFJP.dpuf Rooples (talk) 03:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

No one is saying that science has full knowledge of the details in every step, so there is no conflict. Wikipedia reports what sources known to be reliable for the subject say (and here, the subject is evolution—a branch of science). Discussions on talk pages must focus on actionable proposals regarding improving the article. Johnuniq (talk) 04:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Rooples, your link is to one of the Disco Tute's organs, not a reliable source, and they in turn are linking to papers in BIO-Complexity, which was The Latest “Intelligent Design” Journal as of 2010, published by the Disco's Biologic Institute. Doesn't look at all reliable, [3] but she does have a stock photo of a really sciency looking lab![4][5][6]. . . dave souza, talk 06:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

No need to hide your bias. Granted, our discussion is centered around the merits of ID vs. evolution - but I still think the statement in question needs some revising. Consider this line: "Thus, this system negates the claim that taking away any of the flagellum's parts would render it useless."

The reality of the matter is that taking away any of the flagellum's parts would render "it" useless - if "it" is referring to the flagellum. If the statement is meant to really reflect what your are espousing, it should read something like this: "The fact that the flagellum is made up of components useful to other organs negates the claim that a partially evolved flagellum would not be selected for."

If you can think of a better way to word that, then feel free to suggest one. As it is, the statement infers that the flagellum is useful as a flagellum if it is missing some parts. That is a false statement. What the author should be trying to say is that even if the there aren't enough parts to make up the flagellum, its component parts are still useful. I hope I am making the distinction clear.Rooples (talk) 02:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

By the way, my bias is against pseudoscientists posing as though they're scientists, particularly against a fake backdrop. See WP:PSCI for policy on how to show such claims. . dave souza, talk 09:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not an editor makes a distinction clear is not relevant. What counts are reliable sources from acknowledged experts in the field. Johnuniq (talk) 02:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Please explain: Do the reliable sources say that the flagellum is not useless as a flagellum if it is missing parts? Or do the sources say the parts that make up the flagellum are not useless for other purposes if there are not enough parts to make a complete flagellum? I believe the distinction is the difference between a true statement and a false statement, not just an editorial distinction. Rooples (talk) 04:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

On the latter, it's well covered by Miller" "The existence of the TTSS in a wide variety of bacteria demonstrates that a small portion of the "irreducibly complex" flagellum can indeed carry out an important biological function. Since such a function is clearly favored by natural selection, the contention that the flagellum must be fully-assembled before any of its component parts can be useful is obviously incorrect. What this means is that the argument for intelligent design of the flagellum has failed."

on your first statement, ToA covers the point that "The bacterial flagellum is not even irreducible." It gives details, and we should cite it on this issue.

How can evolution account for the complexity of life on earth today? | BioLogos notes "the supposedly irreducibly complex bacterial flagellum turns out not to be irreducible after all. For example, there is a protein at the base of the flagellum, an ATPase, that drives the key structural subunit (flagellin) of the long hollow tube through its inner core, causing the flagellum to grow in length. Yet, it has been shown that flagellin can be transported to the end of a flagellum without this ATPase. The protein that was thought to be one of the flagellum’s most important parts can be done away with." They cite “Bacterial Flagellar Diversity and Evolution: Seek Simplicity and Distrust It?” by Lori Snyder, Nicholas J. Loman, Klaus Futterer, and Mark J. Pallen, Trends in Microbiology 17:1-5, 2009, doi 10.1016/j.tim.2008.10.002,

We should cite these sources instead of, as at present, confusingly giving the last word to Dembski and thus giving undue weight to pseudoscience. Does anyone have access to Snyder et al.? . . dave souza, talk 07:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC) (p.s. a non-rs overview is given at STAN 4)

I have access to the html version, not the PDF with page numbers. Don't know if this paragraph helps:

A dispensable protein pump

Despite Behe's misleading irreducible complexity argument, it has been clear for some time – from comparative studies and from investigations of mutants – that some flagellar components are dispensable [6]. Nonetheless, similar studies also fuelled unquestioned support in the flagellar research community for an essential role for FliI, a highly conserved cytoplasmic ATPase present in all flagellar systems that was thought to power flagellar protein export [12]. However, such deep-seated assumptions were overturned dramatically in early 2008 by two back-to-back publications in Nature, which showed that flagellar protein-export, assembly and motility were all possible, even in the absence of FliI 13 and 14. What is more, although these processes occurred initially with decreased efficiency in a FliI-negative background, compensatory mutations in other flagellar components were able to restore near-wildtype capabilities. Instead of ATP hydrolysis, the most important energiser of secretion turns out to be the proton-motive force. These findings not only signal a dramatic shift in our understanding of flagellar biosynthesis but also deal yet another blow to the notion that the flagellum is irreducibly complex.

Yopienso (talk) 07:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very useful. I've made a start using the ToA ref, will work on wording using this reference. Since it's published online I don't think page numbers are needed. . dave souza, talk 12:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

@Dave Souza: Where does Behe claim that "the flagellum must be fully-assembled before any of its component parts can be useful"? There is no such quote like that in this article. In fact, I know he has said that the component parts of the flagellum can be useful for other purposes. He does assert that the flagellum must be fully-assembled before it can be useful as a flagellum.

The ToA article cites examples of flagellum with fewer than 40 components. All this shows is that the minimum number of proteins for a working flagellum is less than what was previously thought. This does not show that you can remove a protein from the most basic flagellum and still have a working flagellum - which is what seems to be espoused by the statement in this article I am contending.

The Biologos article (and the paper cited within) deal with a protein gate through which flagellum components are exported for assembly. The study showed that the flagellum was still able to be assembled when there were mutations in this export system. I am not sure how this relates at all to whether or not the individual components that make up the flagellum are indespensable. If a car motor were an irreducibly complex organ, these mutations would be comparable to a conveyor belt on the assembly line breaking down.

Again, the issue with the statement I am contending is that the flagella still works as a flagella even if components that compose the actual structure of the flagella are removed. Rooples (talk) 06:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Reliable secondary source? Behe's argument is rather incoherent, evolution doesn't require removing proteins and maintaining the same function, but as Snyder et al. have shown, some flagellar components are dispensable. Behe's "irreducible complexity" has just been reduced. . . dave souza, talk 09:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Like I just said, Snyder et al. have not shown that some flagellar components are dispensable. Snyder et al. have shown that the flagellum can still form when there are mutations in the protein gate through which the flagellum components are exported for assembly. This says nothing of the components that make up the flagellum itself.

This is the same critique I have with the line “Experiments have shown that many proteins can be deleted from the flagellar apparatus without destroying its function,[75][76] even though its activity may be reduced in some of these cases."

Even if this statement were true, the papers cited to support it do not actually support the claim. The deleted proteins in these studies do not form the core components of the flagellum.

The closest that any cited work comes to matching this claim is a paper by Kuwajima (1988) which is listed on the Talk Origins page to which you have linked. Talk Origins makes this claim: “One third of the 497 amino acids of flagellin have been cut out without harming its function (Kuwajima 1988).”

This claim is completely false. There was only one strain of bacteria with removed amino acids that still retained full function, and only 5% of the amino acids were removed. The strain with one third of the amino acids removed from the flagellin only operated at 10% capacity of wild type. Even so, this wouldn’t support the claim that you can remove flagellar components and still retain a functional flagellum. The flagellum in this study still retained their flagellin, only a deficient version of flagellin.

Still, this is not the place to debate the merits of IC. My main point is still focused on the statement: "The needle's base has ten elements in common with the flagellum, but it is missing forty of the proteins that make a flagellum work.[70] Thus, this system negates the claim that taking away any of the flagellum's parts would render it useless."

What exactly is being claimed here? Is it being claimed that if you remove some of the flagellum’s parts it would still function as a flagellum. Even if this were true, the statement is based on the previous point that the needle’s base has parts in common with the flagellum. How does the second statement follow from the first? It doesn’t. If you want to say that removing some of the flagellum’s parts doesn’t hurt the function of the flagellum, you should base it off a statement from the Snyder et. al paper – which I have already expressed my concerns with. Saying that the flagellum has parts in common with the needle’s base does nothing to show that parts of the flagellum can be removed without harming its function as a flagella. Can I make my point any clearer? Rooples (talk) 05:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

"Irreducible complexity" claims that the flagellum can't evolve as if any parts are missing it lacks function – that's false as simpler homologues have other functions so evolution can work through exaptation, and there's considerable variation and redundancy in flagella. Your argument is like saying if you remove a dog's legs it can't run, so it could not have evolved from a fish. See Tiktaalik, and Darwinbish. . dave souza, talk 07:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not arguing for IC at this point. Let's say for humors sake that I now completely agree with your position. My latest points remain unchallenged. There are several statements in this paragraph where the truth that is being affirmed does not follow logically from the previous statement, or where the truth doesn't follow from the papers cited. Either show me how I am wrong in my observations (and stop repeating the same mantra), or accept that there needs to be a few editorial alterations and make them. Otherwise, I am going to make them myself.Rooples (talk) 06:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Article talk pages need an actionable proposal. The current discussion is too abstract for any consensus about a change. Please identify a proposed change, with a brief explanation, and reliable sources. One way to do that is to edit the article and see if the edit is accepted by other editors, or whether it is reverted. Johnuniq (talk) 07:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is my actionable proposal: In regards to the statement: "The needle's base has ten elements in common with the flagellum, but it is missing forty of the proteins that make a flagellum work.[70] Thus, this system negates the claim that taking away any of the flagellum's parts would render it useless." I recommend changing the second line to: "Thus, this system negates the claim that taking away any of the flagellum's parts would render its individual parts useless." As it stands, the statements imply that the flagellum is not useless when it is missing 40 proteins, but if it is missing 40 proteins it is no longer a flagellum, and therefore, we are really referring to the parts of the flagellum, not the flagellum itself. I also question what claim this statement is refuting. Can the author provide any reference where an ID proponent has said the parts of the flagellum can't be used for other purposes?

Secondly, in regards to the statement: "Experiments have shown that many proteins can be deleted from the flagellar apparatus without destroying its function,[76][77] even though its activity may be reduced in some of these cases." I recommend deleting this line completely, unless better citations can be found to support the statement. None of the deleted proteins in these two studies compose the structure of the flagellar apparatus. They are complimentary proteins involved with things like signal cascades. As support for this claim I refer to Dembski: "A functional system is irreducibly complex if it contains a multipart subsystem (i.e., a set of two or more interrelated parts) that cannot be simplified without destroying the system’s basic function. I refer to this multipart subsystem as the system’s irreducible core. We can therefore define the core of a functionally integrated system as those parts that are indispensable to the system’s basic function: remove parts of the core, and you can’t recover the system’s basic function from the other remaining parts." http://www.designinference.com/documents/2004.01.Irred_Compl_Revisited.pdf The deleted proteins in these studies do not provide the basic function. The very fact that they can be deleted without destroying the core function goes to show that they do not form the IC core.Rooples (talk) 06:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The cited statement concerned isn't about Dembski's conflicting and confusing waffling, it's about "Behe says the flagellum and other intricate systems are "irreducibly complex"--like a mousetrap, they wouldn't work if you took away even one part. Behe argues it's impossible that such a structure could have come about through natural selection, which is thought to build complex structures one step at a time. So a designer must have done it all at once, he says." So have clarified that point. As for evolution, it's not about removing proteins until you have an "IC core" (any mention of that concept in Behe's books?), it's about evolution from precursors. Have added two more recent studies making that point with explicit reference to IC. . dave souza, talk 09:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

In Darwin's Black Box (page 40), Behe recognizes indirect, circuitous route[s]: “if a system is irreducibly complex (and thus cannot have been produced directly), however, one can not definitely rule out the possibility of an indirect, circuitous route”. But wouldn't it be WP:Original research to interpret what he means by that? TomS TDotO (talk) 14:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Conflicting and confusing indeed, since on the previous page he apparently says "By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." So if you remove any part and it stops working, it's irreducibly complex unless it evolved by "an indirect, circuitous route". No wonder they couldn't set up a scientific research program. A point specifically covered in this review, which notes "Behe's argument for intelligent design ultimately fails because it is a belief and not a potential explanation." Maybe we should include this evasive line by Behe. . . dave souza, talk 15:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The last line is much better - thanks for changing it - the cited sources are in line with your statement. In other matters, please note how Behe specified that the parts you can't remove are those that contribute to the basic function. That is the IC core. For example, a mouse trap could have sticky pads on the bottom that keep it in one place and increase its effectiveness, but these pads could be removed without destroying the function. Since Behe's argument is in regard to the evolvability of an IC system, the focus would naturally be on the simplest version of that system to first evolve. After the basic function is established, there could be parts added that do not establish basic functionality, but enhance the basic function. Specifically, Behe said to me in an email "A system can have inessential parts as well as essential ones, and of course then the inessential ones could be removed." This is the same sentiment as Dembski. In regard to your modified statement: "The TTSS system negates Behe's claim that taking away any one of the flagellum's parts would stop it from working." How does the notion that the TTSS has flagellar homologs support the claim that the flagellum can still work if a part is taken away? There is no logical connection. If you want to make the statement that the flagellum can still work if a part is taken away, you need to try citing a paper where a part is taken away and the flagellum still functions as a flagellum. If the flagellum is stripped down to its TTSS core, it is no longer a flagellum, and therefore the "flagellum" is not working. What you should be trying to say is that "the TTSS system negates Behe's claim that the subunits of the flagellum can't have functions other than motility" - though I doubt Behe ever made such a claim. I suggest further revision of the statement.Rooples (talk) 06:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Emails can't be used, unless published by a reliable source. What Behe says in writing is:

"By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution."

He's claimed that the flagellum is such a system, but as critics have pointed out his argument ignores exaptation in which "irreducibly complex systems" can have precursors with differing functions. His weasel wording leaves room for this as "an indirect, circuitous route", and so in his own terms IC fails to challenge Darwinian evolution. Collapse of stout party. . . dave souza, talk 10:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh look!. . . dave souza, talk 11:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

It's important to define what the flagella is. Does it include the chemotaxis controls? The assembly proteins? How about the cell wall? - because the flagella needs to be anchored in something. Some of the initial studies you cited dealt with things like the chemotaxis controls. If you strip away the parts related to the flagella until you get to the system that produces the basic function - you'll have what Behe had in mind. Behe did not ignore exaptation. This wiki points out one of Behe's criteria for IC - linked to the number of unselected steps needed to produce it. Exaptation (as the talk origins article points out) requires neutral, unselectable mutations. But more importantly, please address my concerns about the disconnect between saying that the TTSS homology proves the flagellum can still function when a part is taken away. That's more important at this point.Rooples (talk) 04:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC) Please try and justify the statement you continue to hold onto. The fact that some of the parts of the flagellum are homologous to the TTSS doesn't have anything to do with whether or not removing a part from the flagellum would cause it to cease functioning. Do you understand the objection I am raising?Rooples (talk) 06:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

You appear to be confused about just what Behe claims, so I've clarified the opening para and added a citation. The system can still function when a part has been removed, so Behe's argument fails to disprove evolution. The fact that the function may change is well established as exaptation. . dave souza, talk 10:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I understand what Behe claims - but saying that parts of the flagellum can form the TTSS does not show that the flagellum can still function when a part is removed. Behe's claims of IC are centered around the original function of the system. If fewer parts can be rearranged to perform a different function, you are no longer referring to the same system or the same function - and therefore you are not refuting the potential IC of the original system. Besides, even if you removed the 30 excess proteins, you would not have a working TTSS. The TTSS only shares about 25% sequence similarity with the corresponding parts of the flagellum. In order for your statement to come close to making sense you would have to show that you can have a working TTSS if you remove the 30 excess proteins. If you have to make major sequence changes to the remaining proteins in order to get a working TTSS - you automatically refute the notion that removing the 30 proteins can give you a system with a different function. Rooples (talk) 04:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Cleaning up Definition

The definition section 1 has a commentary paragraph between the first and second definition, starting at "Supporters of intelligent design argue" thru "whether irreducible complexity can be found in nature, and what significance it would have if it did exist in nature. [citation needed]" Since this not definition material, I'm inclined to delete it but wonder if folks would prefer it be moved instead. The nearest fit for it seems to me the end para of 2.2 Origins. Any thoughts ? Markbassett (talk) 13:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Delete putting in my 2 cents Markbassett (talk) 13:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Nobody ever talked so I have moved the para re significance to 2.4 Consequences. I would have deleted but lacking other inputs went for something a bit lesser than BRD step. Meh.Markbassett (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

This is written like a essay. And has a bias.

This is written like a essay. And it has a bias against intelligent design violating the rule that says all the wiki page's must be neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.171.6 (talk) 00:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Your understanding of that rule is wrong. See WP:NPOV#Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

Pseudoscience is a unnecessary pejorative term. Irreducible complexity is simply a description of a biological system. Pseudoscience would be to claim that any particular system is irreducibly complex without any simulation or other experiment. But the concept of irreducible complexity is not pseudoscience. It is a concept. Concepts cannot be pseudoscience. Qowieury (talk) 09:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

IC is not a "philosophy"—it is an assertion about a scientific topic (biology) that uses scientific jargon and features books such as Darwin's Black Box. IC is dressed up as science but is used to dismiss science, and IC is contradicted by the findings of science. In other words, IC is a claim, belief or practice which is incorrectly presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status. An encyclopedic article has to accurately record the core features of a topic without concern about whether the proponents of IC might regard the description as pejorative. Johnuniq (talk) 10:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

IC is a description of a possible situation. A biology textbook (many years from now after such a thing could be proven) might say "There are no irreducibly complex structures in the human body." And it would not be nonsense. I agree that there could be a lot of pseudoscience circulating around IC, but IC itself is simply a description of a potential type of biological structure. Perhaps philosophical is not the best word, but pseudoscience is just editorializing. How could we write that first sentence better?Qowieury (talk) 10:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Umm, do you know what IC is and how it is used? It is a central part of ID which is an attempt to deny science. By the way, all medical research and all biology is based on evolution, and therefore we don't have to wait for many years from now for the biology textbook—there are no magic boxes in the human body put there by an intelligent designer and which have no natural explanation. Johnuniq (tal"k) 10:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Intelligent Design can be pseudoscience, when fake and silly experiments are said to prove it, for instance. But it is first of all a philosophical theory. A respected and reasonable philosophical theory. For instance, it is a common hypothesis in theoretical physics that our universe is a computer simulation in a larger universe. This is not pseudoscience but a reasonable hypothesis that respected scientists are trying to come up with a way to prove or disprove. To go around calling every philosophical supposition pseudoscience because there is no scientific evidence for it is to misunderstand philosophy. Irreducible complexity is a term with a definition. It describes an important concept in the philosophy of biology: A biological structure whose evolution cannot be described by a series of small steps each possessing an evolutionary advantage. That is an important concept, if only so that biologists can say that there are no irreducibly complex systems in the human body (though they cannot say that as there is a lot more work to do in biology before they can, but maybe 100 years from now they can say that).

My point is that pseudoscience should be reserved for things like water divining and phrenology. Things that are actually fake sciences. Intelligent design is a theory which you and nearly all (but not quite all) evolutionary biologists think is false. Irreducible complexity is a concept in that theory, though it also has some usefulness outside that theory. To put it in a pile with phrenology is just insulting. The scientific community can reject it, but the philosophical community is still very interested. Calling this pseudoscience would be like calling all of biology pseudophysics. Qowieury (talk) 11:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be thinking of variants on the teleological argument, irreducible complexity like the rest of ID is a religious argument dressed up as science, which makes it pseudoscience. Good sources show this, as cited in the article. You seem to be proposing your own original research, which is no good for Wikipedia. . dave souza, talk 12:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

You will not find "our universe is a computer simulation in a larger universe" in a scientific journal. It is just armchair philosophizing.

1. Yes you would find it in a scientific journal. Lots of articles. 2. Philosophy is not "armchair philosophy" which is just a term that scientifically minded people use to insult philosophers. 3. My point is that an article on the universe as a computer simulation would not be marked pseudoscience and neither should this article. Not being able to prove a concept, or even if a concept is false, does not make that concept pseudoscience.Qowieury (talk) 08:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The problem with definitions like "A biological structure whose evolution cannot be described by a series of small steps" is the "cannot be done" part. People tend to "prove" it cannot be done by trying and failing. What they cannot do cannot be done. This is classic pseudoscientific methodology. It is what ufologists do, what Däniken does, what parapsychologists do, and what ID does. ID critics are aware of this, and it is one of the reasons why irreducible complexity is considered pseudoscience. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

You both make the same error. "Dressed up as science" "armchair philosophizing". You might think that everything outside of science is fake science, but there really are concepts in philosophy that apply to science but are not scientific. This is one of them. This in no way is like pseudoscience. The people working in this philosophical field are not charlatans. Just because you disagree with people does not make them frauds. Pseudoscience must be reserved for scientific fraud, not philosophical ideas with which you disagree.

Most importantly, I am not even arguing for removing the word pseudoscience from the other sentence in the first paragraph where it says that people regard this as pseudoscience. But it in no means is appropriate for the first sentence of a neutral article. You say that it is bad science. I am saying that it is not science.Qowieury (talk) 07:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I support this change. It's accurate that the scientific community regards it as pseudoscience, but it is not accurate to include it in primary definition, because that's now how it's primarily defined by those who conceptualized it. IC is a philosophical concept used by proponents of ID. Attaboy (talk) 16:53, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

That's not what the reliable sources show. You are of course welcome to propose sources, but remember that we have to give due weight to majority expert views. . . dave souza, talk 17:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The sources that are currently cited address ID, not IC, except for the first quote from the book that is the same level of evidence as Behe's books. In addition, sources written by those who conceptualized it would be authoritative sources on its definition, whether or not they're in peer reviewed journals. The peer reviewed sources are a response to the original writings - these sources wouldn't exist otherwise. These sources lend notability to the original sources. It's logical to present a concept as defined by those that conceptualized it, followed by criticisms of the concept. Attaboy (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

It's policy that articles are based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, rather than the primary sources showing views of adherents, and that due weight is given to showing the majority view of the fringe claims of proponents. Firstly, what third party sources do you propose? . . . . dave souza, talk 19:58, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Please take the time to read the due weight policy that you referenced, in regards to minority views. Per that policy, this is an article relating to a minority viewpoint, one held by a significant minority. Thus, these views should be the forefront topic of the article, with the majority viewpoint clearly referenced within the article. By placing the pejorative term within the definition, you are going against the due weight policy. Simply because majority criticism exist does not determine that those criticism are part of how the viewpoint is defined.

The purpose of using a third-party source is to ensure that the facts are verifiable. Using writings of the proponents of a viewpoint is also verifiable. Attaboy (talk) 22:04, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Above all else, we should at least be able to agree that one use of the word pseudoscience in the first paragraph ought to be sufficient.Qowieury (talk) 03:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

There is a distinction between a concept and its application to science. The claim that biological systems are irreducibly complex is a pseudoscientific claim. It would not only be a violation of Wikipedia policy to say that IC is anything less than pseudoscience, it would also be intellectually irresponsible to say that such a silly argument from ignorance is anything but pseudoscience. --I am One of Many (talk) 04:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

You start so well. I totally agree that the "claim that biological systems are irreducibly complex is a pseudoscientific claim", although I would still rather we were reserving pseudoscience for the category of fraud that claims a scientific backing. But this article is not about the "claim that biological systems are irreducibly complex." It is about what "irreducibly complex" means. And a concept cannot be pseudoscience. It can be false. It can be useless. It can be stupid. But it is a description of a thing. A unicorn is not pseudoscience. An article on unicorns discovered in the wild is pseudoscience. And above all, the word pseudoscience is still in the first paragraph. It is its use in the first sentence that is weird.Qowieury (talk) 04:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what article you are reading, but this one is not a philosophical analysis of IC. It is about how it supporters attempst to use it as a scientific claim. Also, pseudoscience is not scientific fraud. Scientific fraud is simply that, scientific fraud. Pseudoscience is simply false science. It covers various claims of doing science, which do not fit the rather broad domain of scientific methods and practices. Thus, to say some thing is pseudoscience is not to say it involves scientific fraud, rather it simply means that something doesn't fall in the domain of accepted scientific methods and practices. So, the term pseudoscience is not a pejorative term because it simply does not imply fraud (though various disciplines that engage in pseudoscience also engage in types of fraud). I am One of Many (talk) 06:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Pseudoscience is homeopathy, vitamin C preventing colds, and magnetic bracelets that help your balance. Phrenology is pseudoscience when it tries to read your skull, but palm reading is not because it never claimed to be scientific. Extending pseudoscience to mean not "in the domain of accepted scientific methods and practices" would mean calling mathematics and philosophy pseudoscience. You name the very problem with this article. Instead of being an encyclopedic description of IC, it reads like an essay trying to convince people that IC doesn't exist. But an encyclopedia should not take a side. Yes lets put all the vast consensus against IC in the article. Yes, let's even give that consensus the pride of place in the article. But first let us just impartially answer the question, "What is IC?" and what IC is is a concept. An interesting concept relying on a similarly named and very important concept in philosophy. It can't be pseudoscience because it is more basic than that. If someone tries to prove that a biological structure is irreducibly complex using a clinical trial, that will be pseudoscience. But the idea is at root a valid idea belonging to philosophy, even if science will say, rightly, that there is no evidence that any structure is IC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qowieury (talk • contribs) 07:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

So, more of your original research with no source for this claim. It should be noted that phrenology is a concept with a better claim than IC to have been science, or at least protoscience, but the article opens by stating that it "is a pseudoscience primarily focused on measurements of the human skull". . . dave souza, talk 13:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

what do you mean original research? There is no question of fact at stake. The question is how an article on a controversial topic ought to begin. The status quo is definitely wrong because IC is not a theory. ID might be called a theory and might even be properly called a pseudoscientific theory depending on how a person is arguing for it. But IC is simply a concept, a description of a possible state. My point is that concepts should not be called pseudoscientific, though they can be used by pseudoscience. And what do you mean phrenology is not pseudoscience? It is almost the definition of pseudoscience. Qowieury (talk) 16:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Still no reliable sources for your claims? I'm sympathetic to the point that IC isn't a theory, and having checked, both Pigliucci and Jones call it an argument, so have revised the lead in accordance with these sources. . . dave souza, talk 17:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Offtopic a bit, but phrenology contributed to the development of scientific understanding of the mind as a property of the brain rather than being supernatural and non-material, and was a predecessor of neuropsychology. Unlike IC, which is basically the teleological argument in a new tuxedo. Source for phrenology – "Nonetheless, Gall's organology was the first comprehensive, premodern statement of a theory of cerebral localization. The early pioneers of modern localization, especially Paul Broca and David Ferrier, were careful to define how their theories differed from phrenology, even as they provided the clinical and scientific data that confirmed some of its basic tenets." . . dave souza, talk 17:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I am definitely not going to get into an argument about phrenology, so let's forget about that. I guess argument is ok. I prefer concept, but both are far better than theory. But back to the basic question: can an argument be pseudo-scientific? Why is it important to have that word twice in the first paragraph? It just seems redundant and also based in polemics. I understand that this is a political issue with people trying to put ID into biology class where it clearly does not belong, but if we can step back from the controversy and look at IC, it is an interesting and useful concept, if only so that a biology can say that no biological structure is IC. If it were pseudo-science, the response would not be as interesting as the rest of the article shows. Indeed, a lot of science has been done, as the rest of the article says, to show that flagella are not IC. The same could not be said for instance with regard to homeopathy, for which the only response is ridicule. I just think that pseudo-science has to be used carefully or it will not mean anything anymore. IC might be abused by ID defenders, but it stands on its own as a valid description of a biological system that happens to not exist, but responding to Behe's initial proposal in order to refute it has resulted in useful thinking. If anything, applying the scientific method correctly, I would call the existence of IC a disproven/unproven hypothesis. Imagine if IC had been proposed not by a defender of ID but by an evolutionary biologist who spoke about reducible complexity. It would be considered a part of the theory of natural selection. Qowieury (talk) 18:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

There are no facts in question, it is clear that the majority viewpoint is that IC is not scientifically tenable, so a request for sources supporting IC as scientifically sound is not relevant. There are two issues at play -

• The first is is how the subject, which is a minority viewpoint, is primarily defined. WP:Weight supports more weight being given for the minority viewpoint for which the article is written, with inclusion of the majority viewpoint, defined as such.
• The second issue should be less controversial because it's a matter of standard wikipedia citation guidelines, in that there aren't any peer-reviewed articles that describes IC as pseudoscience, only one book which is on the same level of evidence as the writings supporting IC, not necessarily representative of the scientific community. I was bold and removed the incorrect citations as well as the redundant information from the court findings. On the basis that the only source using "pseudoscience" to describe IC is not a weighty source, I have removed it from the first sentence. If one of you believes Shulman's work to be weighty enough to be mentioned within this article at any point, the information would need to be rewritten to make it clear that he is not the mouthpiece for the entire scientific community. Attaboy (talk) 03:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, the sources that were removed do not describe IC, they are off topic. Shulman is not the scientific community. Additionally, there's no reason that the same reference (court findings) should be cited twice for the very same information. Attaboy (talk) 04:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Since there was no further talk page discussion, I've put my edits back in. Please discuss here before reverting those edits. Attaboy (talk) 04:44, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

IC is used primarily in discussion of ID. It isn't really a "thing" outside of the ID scope. Of course many or all of our sources will discuss ID centrally, because that's the topic. Your claim that they don't discuss IC is not true. Here's a quote from one source you removed: "True in this latest creationist variant, advocates of so-called intelligent design ... use more slick, pseudoscientific language. They talk about things like 'irreducible complexity'..." Your main contribution in this series of edits is to remove "pseudoscience" from the article, which is inappropriate, per our sources.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Based on this source we use I could see changing the first sentence to:

"Irreducible complexity (IC) is an incoherent and pseudoscientific concept central to the creationist concept of intelligent design."

but I don't think it is a change that is important. It's fine the way it is. --I am One of Many (talk) 15:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

A blog post as a source, really?

• If you were familiar with this article, you would have known that it was a readable copy of an article published in The Quarterly Review of Biology cited in this article. --I am One of Many (talk) 17:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Even this article doesn't describe IC as pseudoscience and if it did it wouldn't belong in the primary definition, per WP:Weight Attaboy (talk) 18:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The title of the article is "Irreducible Incoherence and Intelligent Design – a look into the conceptual toolbox of a pseudoscience". Unless you would have us abandon logic, the article clearly states IC is a pseudoscientific concept. --I am One of Many (talk) 18:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Please read and respond to more than one sentence that I wrote. I won't waste my time rewriting something, simply because you didn't respond to it, so here you go:

"there are two issues at play -

• The first is is how the subject, which is a minority viewpoint, is primarily defined. WP:Weight supports more weight being given for the minority viewpoint for which the article is written, with inclusion of the majority viewpoint, defined as such.
• The second issue should be less controversial because it's a matter of standard wikipedia citation guidelines, in that there aren't any peer-reviewed articles that describes IC as pseudoscience, only one book which is on the same level of evidence as the writings supporting IC, not necessarily representative of the scientific community."

Additionally, Shulman is primarily a journalist that writes about a broad range of topics, not a biologist or an authority in any scientific field and this book of his is a political polemic, not even approaching a credible scientific source. As far as the other sources that use the word pseudoscientific regarding ID, it is intellectually dishonest to simply append a description of ID onto IC, it's an overgeneralization. Simply because ID as a whole is considered pseudoscientific does not necessarily mean each concept associated with it is defined as the same. Attaboy (talk) 17:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Regarding the first claim, I think you are misinterpreting WP:Weight: "Other minority views may require much more extensive description of the majority view to avoid misleading the reader." This is exactly the case here. We don't want to mislead the reader regarding the pseudoscientific nature of the IC argument.
• Regarding the second, there are plenty of sources if one looks. The QRB source that you mistook for a blog post is a good one. --I am One of Many (talk) 18:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Extensive describes the amount of content regarding a viewpoint, not the prominence with which it used. Using the majority's definition of a minority viewpoint is far from neutral. The definition, as I had edited it, is not misleading - it makes it clear who uses this argument and doesn't make any statement regarding its scientific validity. It doesn't make sense to define something by what it isn't.

Again, the QRB source is like the others, it doesn't describe IC as pseudoscientific. Yes, it argues that Behe's definition and use is incoherent, but like I said above, it doesn't make sense to define something by what it isn't. Attaboy (talk) 19:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Regarding you first point, keep in mind that this is not an article about IC from the fringe view of ID. It is about IC as a concept or argument used by ID. The claim, as understood from the consensus view, is that is a characteristic of some biological systems, which Darwinian evolution cannot explain. This is precisely why IC is a pseudoscientific concept or argument from the consensus stand point of science. If we significantly alter the article, then we are giving undue weight to the fringe view of IC. I understand that ID supporters believe that they are doing science and that their claims the some biological systems are irreducibly complex is not pseudoscience, but we cannot adopt that position here. Regarding the second point, the QRB article is about IC as one of the main pseudoscientific concepts in the ID toolbox. It goes further than identifying IC as a pseudoscientific concept, they argue that IC is also incoherent.--I am One of Many (talk) 22:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Having stepped away from this discussion for a couple days, I took another look at the first paragraph. It seems that my real problem with the paragraph has always been that the first sentence starts criticizing before it has defined the term. I moved the definition into the first sentence, and combined all the criticism into the rest of the paragraph. I really hope that this is a change that we can all live with. Perhaps the criticism can even be strengthened if it does not seem clear enough, but my real problem with the paragraph this whole time has been that it rejected the concept before telling people what it is, which does not seem to be an appropriate order for an encyclopedia. I am still of the opinion that while IC is wrong, it does not fit a good definition of pseudoscience, but if someone asked what any pseudoscience is, the correct answer is not "it is pseudoscience" but "the idea that such and such happens, which is pseudoscience."Qowieury (talk) 07:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Please see the article on Homeopathy for a good example of practice in these matters. The rejection in the first paragraph is strong and complete, but not until a definition has been given.Qowieury (talk) 07:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I believe the changes you made improved the flow of the article. The content is essentially the same and it is still unambiguous what the majority view is. Attaboy (talk) 18:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)