Talk:Irreducible complexity/Archive 6

Discoverer

An IP inserted (under "Definitions"): "Although Wikipedia states that Hermann_Joseph_Muller discovered irreducible complexity, t...". Apart from the self referentiality (to WP), I dislike the word "discovered" (which also appears in the linked article). If a reference is to be made then I would suggest "invented" be used instead. TheresaWilson (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems that there is an ambiguity in the opening to this article, "The term "irreducible complexity" was originally defined by Behe as ...". I had thought that it meant something like this: The precise wording of the expression "irreducible complexity" was introduced by Behe, and he used it to mean such-and-such. It seems that others take it, rather, to mean something like: The concept referred to by "irreducible complexity" was first analyzed by Behe, that concept being such-and-such. This second reading is likely to give rise to confusion when the reader comes across the discussion of the "Forerunners", talking about several writers who, long before Behe, discussed a very similar concept (albeit it was only more recently brought up in the context of evolution, but even there, Behe wasn't the first). Am I correct? If so, shouldn't the opening to the article be reworded to avoid ambiguity and be clearer? TomS TDotO (talk) 12:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

To clarify the "definitions" section, I've changed the above wording to "The term "irreducible complexity" was coined by Behe, who defined it as applying to:", and modified the lead to "Biochemistry professor Michael Behe, the originator of the term irreducible complexity, defines an irreducibly complex...." Hope that helps. . dave souza, talk 14:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Learned Nothing

I came here to learn more about ID for a research paper and learned nothing despite arguments against it. Whereas it is certainly important to have arguments against ID (since the debate is highly controversial), it is not necessary to have a rebuttal to every ID claim the next sentence afterward. This article is obviously slanted away from even objectively informing people what ID even is. Pathetic...Mr2b (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

If you learnt something elsewhere, your suggestions for article improvement will be welcome. As the layout and weight given to ID arguments is determined by policies linked under Article policies in the second box at the top of this page, it will be constructive if you could make the case for proposals here first rather than starting by making any drastic changes to the article. Thanks, dave souza, talk 20:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a blatantly clear slant here, and it is being handled the same way as the opposition to anything ID related is handled. The sheer number of people dissenting on this talk page speaks as to the soul of wikipedia, "policies" and your interpretation of them be damned. From the text of one of the "WP:RS" - "ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community." How can "ID" (A hypothesis) make a "negative attack" on another hypothesis (whatever the strengths of either).

The greatest evidence for the blatant slant is apparent in the very last line of the lead-in... "which overwhelmingly regards intelligent design as pseudoscience.[3]" not only speaking for "the scientific community" (which thankfully, is still full of people asking questions, regardless of the popularity it gives them) but then it CITES the following: ""True in this latest creationist variant, advocates of so-called intelligent design ... use more slick, pseudoscientific language. They talk about things like 'irreducible complexity'" So, now an editorial opinion qualifies as a WP:RS? And then the icing on this cake is where this opinion comes from: Shulman, Seth (2006). Undermining science: suppression and distortion in the Bush Administration. Berkeley: University of California Press. p. 13. - This man (out of Berkeley.) is a journalist and author. Not a scientist of any order. He has written a politically charged anti-Bush book (in 2004, no less) and it received critical acclaim. From the anti-Bush crowd (which, interestingly enough, includes some scientists). This book was endorsed by some scientists (~12,000... no small number by any means, although their credentials aren't listed) as a whole, not specifically because a journalist uses derogatory remarks against we he terms "psuedoscience" (which is the new byword for anything that challenges the establishment). The fact alone that this joke of a WP:RS stands on this page is testament to those rabidly defending the impartiality of this article.

Next up "for most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience." AGAIN "most members" yet this number is never cited.

Every single WP:RS used is a snide and derisive review on something that more than a few people are interested in. How about some cold, hard, scientific refutation of IC instead of this liberal vs conservative tripe?

I am no scientist. But, like the original poster, I came here to LEARN about "IC". Instead, I found a wikipedia article that has surpassed any previous bias I have experienced on here.

And please, don't insult me with "if you can make the article better..." maybe ID/IC *IS* crap, you don't have to debase Wikipedia by devoting a page to slandering it while masquerading as information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archon888 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 5 April 2010

The problem is that all scientists currently working in biology and medicine know that the evolutionary explanation for life is correct. Further, all "irreducible complexity" scenarios have been shown to be compatible with evolution (that is, the irreducible complexity argument is wrong). Accordingly, there are few scientists willing to waste time publishing papers pointing out the IC errors, just as there are no suitably qualified scientists publishing papers saying it is correct. Johnuniq (talk) 02:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Total utter garbage. I know for a fact that this is not only just wrong, but quite considerably off the mark. This page is of poor quality, and extremely one-sided, and now we know why. It is edited by religious zealots worshiping at the altar of Darwinian evolution. Though my opinion on the creationist versus darwinist debate was initially neutral, nonsense such as this almost makes me happy that the phylogenetic tree is dying a painful death in the light of accruing genomic sequencing data. 82.132.248.167 (talk) 13:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Johnuniq, what source did you use to come up with the bogus statement that "'all' scientists currently working in biology and medicine know that the evolutionary explanation for life is correct?" It is an absurd statement on two levels. First, it is empirically false. The Discovery Institute maintains a list of Ph. D. level scientists who have expressed skepticism of the idea that darwinian evolution can explain the complexity of life. The statement reads "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." Your statement is also absurd on an a priori level. Scientific methodology does not produce certainty. There is not a single scientist on earth that knows that the neo-darwinian explanation is the "correct" one. Scientists think certain things based on their interpretation of available evidence. And their interpretations aren't even based on available evidence, only on whatever evidence they themselves are privy to. Snoopydaniels (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

@Snoopy There are variety of issues with the DI list. There's a whole article on it, in fact. For one, the majority of those listed are not scientists, or active in any field related to biology. Secondly, the statement is not an objection to evolution, but an expression of skepticism. As a result, some of those on the list signed under a false pretense, and their subsequent requests to be removed have been ignored by the DI. Thirdly, the number of signatures (even in full) is minuscule. Compare to, say, Project Steve. The conclusion that the DI draws from this list -- that there is doubt or debate within the scientific community -- is not only a false one, but in fact their data shows quite the opposite; If this is the best that the largest, and most luxuriously funded proponent of ID can do, there very clearly isn't any doubt within science. Jess_talk|_edits 17:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

@Jess Your above paragraph is completely irrelevant. The Dissent from Darwin list, even if all of your criticisms were true and supported by reliable sources (and they are not), demonstrates Johnuniq's statement from above to be false. Snoopydaniels (talk) 03:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

@Snoopy: you know what to do. Bring us your reliable sources. If, as you suggest, there really is significant dissent within the scientific community, than it should have produced an impact in the scientific literature. Given your certainty of this strong skepticism, finding this should not be a big ask. Further, rather than make sweeping statements about this article, can you please suggest specific changes you'd like to make. --PLUMBAGO 12:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

@Snoopy I'd echo Plumbago's reply. As well, I'd refer you again to the article on the DI list, which cites 61 sources. I do believe the Kitzmiller v Dover case covers this sort of thing as well, (it at least covers why the DI is a questionable source), and I've linked you to that twice now. I didn't go out of my way to look up everything I linked you to just for the fun of it. I was hoping you'd actually read them. If you can find reliable sources which meet WP:RS, then we can talk about changing the article. All the best, Jess_talk|_edits 16:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Bejamin Wiker & Jonathan Witt Eye Rebuttal

In A Meaningful World Benjamin Wiker & Jonathan Witt recognize the scientific explanation for the evolution of the eye given here, but their rebuttal is different from Behe's as it focuses on the macro:

This problem cannot be avoided by asserting that the eye can be built up gradually from a single patch of light-sensitive skin through various stages, slowly reaching the complexity of the vertebrate eye. Why? If you are going to make the case for the evolution of the vertebrate eye or even a light-sensitive patch of skin, the argument must be made in regard to the entire complexity of the living organism, at least insofar as that complexity supports vision (even in the least complex form). For this reason, the debate shouldn't be about the evolution of the eye, but about the evolution of vision, and vision is always the vision of some particular kind of living animal, a living whole whole in which the integrated activity and experience of seeing, even in its simplest form, can take place. (p. 44)

Does anyone have a reason this should not be mentioned along Behe's rebuttal at the end of the eye section? Also, the "although the photoceptor reaction is roughly analogous to the independently evolved light reaction used by plants in photosynthesis" rebuttal to his rebuttal is not a valid one as Behe would likely say that the plant photoreceptor is irreducibly complex as well. I will remove that part until someone can source it or at least explain how that is a rebuttal.--Jorfer (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Herbert Spencer

Herbert Spencer used an argument about the impossibility (in his view) that natural selection could generate "co-operative" parts:"the relative powers of co-operative parts cannot be adjusted solely by survival of the fittest". It is not that Spencer was Lamarckian, but rather the particular argument involving "co-operative" parts, which seems to be very similar to the argument from "irreducible complexity". TomS TDotO (talk) 13:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Says who? This appears to be original research, and we really need a published source that has noticed this vague similarity and specifically refers to irreducible complexity. . . . dave souza, talk 13:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Mark Ridley,

"Coadapatation and the Inadequacy of Natural Selection", British Journal for the History of Science,volume 15 number 1 (March, 1982), pages 45-68, doi:10.1017/S0007087400018938:

"An older and more religious tradition of idealist thinkers were committed to the explanation of complex adaptive contrivances by intelligent design. ... Another line of thinkers, unified by the recurrent publications of Herbert Spencer, also saw coadaptation as a composed, irreducible whole, but sought to explain it by the inheritance of acquired characteristics." (pages 67-68)

I have to do a little more work before adding something appropriate to the article. TomS TDotO (talk) 10:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, so that tells us what the "thinkers" saw, but still doesn't say much about Spencer. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 05:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to work up an accurate, brief description of Spencer's concept of "co-operative parts" used as an argument against the sufficiency of natural selection. Spencer wasn't given to terse descriptions (he spends about eight pages in "The Principles of Biology" describing it), and I thought that what I quoted was about as good as one can get, without going into something which is disproportionately long for an article on "irreducible complexity" - Ridley's article, which seems to me to be good, is 24 pages long.

TomS TDotO (talk) 11:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this variation on the quotation from Spencer would be better?

"We come now to Professor Weismann's endeavour to disprove my second thesis — that it is impossible to explain by natural selection alone the co-adaptation of co-operative parts. It is thirty years since this was set forth in "The Principles of Biology." In §166, I instanced the enormous horns of the extinct Irish elk, and contended that in this and in kindred cases, where for the efficient use of some one enlarged part many other parts have to be simultaneously enlarged, it is out of the question to suppose that they can have all spontaneously varied in the required proportions."

"Weismannism Once More", The Contemporary Review, 1894 (reprinted in "The Works of Herbert Spencer", 1891, volume 17), pages 592-608; quotation from page 594.

TomS TDotO (talk) 13:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

There are a couple of additional secondary sources that I have, which I think would be excessive to cite in the main article, but are too good to just throw away, so perhaps you will excuse me if I quote them here.

"Against selection itself Spencer used an argument that had considerable force when measured against the pregenetical selection theory ... . He pointed out that when a new structure evolved, all the rest of the body would have to accommodate the new development. Thus a series of variations would be required to adjust the overall structure in a manner correlated to the new organ. What would be the chance of all these variations appearing together at the right time, if the species had to depend on random variation? Selection might explain the changes in a single organ, but not an integrated transmutation of the whole body."

Page 245 of Peter J. Bowler (1984). Evolution: The History of an Idea. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-04880-6.

"Spencer ... had invested his major defense of Lamarck in the phenomenon of co-adaptation. How could natural selection, working separately on each trait, produce an intricate coordination of numerous parts, all changing in the same direction?"

Page 218Stephen Jay Gould (2002). The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-00613-5.

TomS TDotO (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, they're interesting but differ significantly in that Spencer sees them as implying the inheritance of acquired characteristics, a process Darwin also thought was occurring, while the whole point of "irreducible complexity" is that Goddunnit cos natural processes couldn't. So, not really the same thing. . . dave souza, talk 21:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Reading your addition, it looks ok to me. . . dave souza, talk 21:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

POV Tag

After reading the article, and the above comments, I believe that it is clear to anybody on either side that some sort of discussion needs to take place to get the article to retract it's claws (Just a bit). It reads like a criticism and not a neutral article. I'm certain that the language can be softened just a tad-bit, so it reads more professionally. --209.112.222.8 (talk) 21:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:TALK, could you please make specific proposals with sources supporting any changes. Also note that neutrality means giving proportionate weight to scientific views, and not giving undue credence to pseudoscience. Thanks, dave souza, talk 21:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

A small minority of people will always see this and many other articles as biased, but we have to go with the weight of scientific evidence.--Charles (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

What is Science anyway?

To say that "Irreducible complexity (IC) is a nonscientific argument..." begs the question "What is science?". Have we forgotten that Philosophy is the queen of all sciences - she is independent of all other sciences and all other sciences are governed and protecdted by her! At the top of Phiosophy stands metaphysics - Logic follows. Is the auther in search of truth or is the author promoting an agenda? Does the author believe in absolute truth, like First Principles, or relative truth? In any case the author is using language, trying to convey concepts, that can only be anchored in and rely upon Philosophy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.235.157.16 (talk) 13:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Science is the stuff which leads to progress: things like the research behind electronics, computers, the Internet, airplanes, medical procedures, and a bunch more. Johnuniq (talk) 01:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It also generally follows the scientific method, is parsimonious, is falsifiable, etc. So yes, at a basic level, the argument of irreducible complexity is not scientific75.76.196.182 (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

@98.235 Wikipedia is not a forum. Please take your inquiries somewhere else. Thanks. Jess ^talk _cs 02:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Conflicts of interest

Look, although some editors are reverting content they see as unsourced or fringe, AND although these editors plainly state their POVs on their user pages; it still appears to be a WP:COI issue. It is disinenguous to say something is unsourced when plainly it contained inline citations. You can argue the quality of the sources, but they ARE there. Lying about a reversion while having a COI of your own, can cause undesirable reactions that we don't need. Please control your emotions and passions long enough to at least call something what it REALLY is and not what you want it to be. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 19:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about this edit? In it, substantial changes to 3 separate sections of the article are made, entirely changing the content and tone of the article, and only one source is provided, directly from the Discovery Institute. Furthermore, the user is edit warring with no discussion, which is against policy (and likely to get him blocked). If you want that info included, you need to make a case for it here and establish consensus first.

I would suggest reading WP:Fringe and WP:PSCI before you do, as they directly apply to this article and the proposed content. I would also recommend reading through WP:AGF, as suggesting that other users are lying is a personal attack, and likely to get you in trouble. Finally, while we're tacking on policy pages, you may wish to actually read WP:COI, as it doesn't apply in this case, and plainly states so in the guideline. Jess_talk|_edits 19:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, my apologies; let's say your edit summary was inaccurate then, happy? You said "unsourced" did you not? He provided sources, whether they were good ones or not. I mean I thought I saw some ref tags, or did I just see things? Maybe you should work on making your edit summary what it should be, hmmm? I think that would work. I've done an edit or two around here, so I think I should know. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 15:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, TFI, thought you meant my edit for a moment, the summary to which was unexplained promotion fringe views. As for the subsequent summary of Unsourced POV, that accurately describes the claims described immediately below, which are not supported by the sources. However, the poorly sourced apologia were removed at the same time, so arguably that should have been highlighted as Unsourced and poorly sourced POV. I'm sure you didn't mean to be disingenuous in suggesting that all the pov was sourced, and trust you will take great care in future to avoid making personal attacks by accusing other editors of lying instead of assuming good faith. . . dave souza, talk 16:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I will be careful, but any editor that comes into a controversial article (with huge personal opinions on their user page) and deletes content without a credible rationale or attempt at discussion should know the consequences of such an approach. The content added by the one editor appeared to be nothing more than attempt to be evenhanded, and did not even amount to strong disagreement with the existing content. People can play WP lawyer all they want, but that is not what WP is all about. If you don't want to be viewed as a censor, then it is an editor's duty to take extra care not to appear like one. The assumption of good faith has its limit as can be seen in vandalism warning rules. It also works both ways. You can't throw that up for everything. Peace. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 17:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

@ The Founders Intent, please note that in addition to the points raised by Mann Jess, the changes reversed the meaning of statements properly attributed to sources: Barbara Forrest does not call IC a "scientific" argument, and it's not credible to claim that "the argument is one of several arguments proceeding from multiple disciplines in support of the theory of intelligent design, and is a subject of debate within the scientific community" on the basis of the cited source which is the Kitzmiller decision, see pp. 74–79. Regarding the ID proponents' claims, the primary sources cited are obviously questionable and are skewed to the fringe viewpoint, if any points are to be included they should be discussed by secondary sources giving the necessary context. . . dave souza, talk 08:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid this little discussion is my fault. I'm completely new to the complexities of Wikipedia community and I only realized after my second attempt to edit that such changes require discussion.

Here is as good a place as any to make my case. First, you are quite right that the original anonymous edit lacked proper sourcing. I got a bit ahead of myself with the editing and made a piecemeal change which was incomplete. My subsequent edits, however, had more than adequate citation considering how modest they were. The introduction at least, if not the entire article, is shamefully biased in favor of evolution. It presumes a monopoly on the very definition of what is scientific and what is not when the very nature of the scientific enterprise is the subject of philosophical inquiry to this day.

It is silly to argue that these edits violate WP:Fringe policies when the article itself is about what you would label as a fringe view. The goal of the article should be to present this "fringe" view as faithfully as possible, and the only way to do that is to go to its proponents, not its opponents. Certainly it involves presenting the counterarguments of its opponents, but it also involves presenting the counter-counter arguments such as, for example, in the case of Kenneth Miller's mouse trap argument. Behe and others have presented refutations of Miller, but none of these appear in the article. Instead, the author(s) sources are almost entirely from virulent evolutionists. This is akin to citing Karl Marx in an article about capitalism and dismissing Adam Smith's writings on the basis of his criticism. Of course evolutionists are going to say that irreducible complexity is not a scientific argument. It spares them the labor of actually having to refute it scientifically.

Even the outline and headings of the article are biased. The section titled "Response of the Scientific Community" presumes that intelligent design proponents are not part of that very community. Behe, Axe, Meyer, Wells and others are highly credentialed scientists who should be accorded every respect accorded to evolutionists. The section should be relabeled, "Response of Evolutionists" to reflect the fact that proponents of both Darwinian Evolution and ID are subsets of the scientific community, not that one is an "in" group and one is an "out" group. This isn't high school.

One of the most laughable sections of the article is when, while discussing the mouse trap argument, the author(s) state that "In an amusing example taken from his high school experience, Miller recalls that one of his classmates." There is nothing neutral about this statement. The word "amusing" has no place in an encyclopedia entry.

These are just a few examples. This article as it stands clearly violates WP:NPOV and makes a mockery of Wikipedia. I am not proposing that we remove evolutionist criticisms (although I think there are many statements in the article that are gross overstatements, such as "Evolutionary biologists have shown that such systems can in fact evolve"), but I am proposing that these be balanced with ID counterarguments. As much as evolutionists hate to admit it, there IS a scientific debate going on with respect to the idea of irreducible complexity, and it should be the purpose of this article to communicate this significant fact. Snoopydaniels (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snoopydaniels (talk • contribs) 21:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is yet another very alarming piece of evidence for evolution: Latest bacterial mutation emerged in India. Johnuniq (talk) 23:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Snoopy. Thanks for taking the time to write out the reason for your changes. There's two things I'd like to respond to.

1. You appear to be saying that we should give ID proponents "the last word" because this is an article about ID. However, that's not what WP:Fringe or WP:Weight tell us to do. The article should include the full views of those proposing Irreducible complexity, and the main responses it has garnished, but we can't turn it into a debate. In the case of the Kitzmiller v Dover trial, for example, it is enough to say "Behe gave testimony to X, and the court responded that Y". This should seem reasonable in any other context. For instance, in the Flat Earth article, should we give "equal time", or "the last word" to modern proponents of a flat earth model? Clearly not. It should be sufficient to say "There are modern proponents of a flat earth model who believe X. Scientists disagree due to Y", and leave it at that. Indeed, this is consistent with WP:NPOV.
2. You also state that ID is a scientific theory, and is debated within the scientific community. However, this is not the case, as the Intelligent Design article illuminates. If you have some spare time, I would highly recommend reading through the Kitzmiller v Dover decision, particularly page 63 through 89. If you're still interested, this article in the Journal of Clinical Investigation provides further insight into the "debate", some of its history, and those defending it.

I should note now that it is uncommon to have lengthy conversations about the article's content on talk pages per WP:NOTFORUM, but I'd like to have at least offered you solid reasons for why we've settled on things the way they are. After reading through that material, if you're still interested in adding this content to the article, your best bet is to find reliable secondary sources which explicitly state what you have. (Particularly those not affiliated with the Discovery Institute, which has a history of lying, even under oath, making it a questionable source we cannot use). Since wikipedia is about verifiability, not fact, this will be instrumental to your case. All the best, Jess_talk|_edits 01:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. If the discussion page isn't intended for discussion of the article's content then what is it for? I thought the whole point of the discussion page was for the community to suggest and discuss changes to an article's content before making them. Where would be a more appropriate forum for this discussion? Snoopydaniels (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Snoopy! I replied on your talk page with clarification and a few suggestions. Feel free to let me know if there's any more ambiguity! Jess_talk|_edits 19:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Somewhat biased? revisited

[ People kept on insisting on sprinkling comments throughout a three year old thread. This is proving to be more than a little unworkable, so I'm moving all these new comments to a new thread here & archiving the old thread. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC) ]

Is there a place on wiki that is intended for debates? No sarcasm intended. Sullyj4 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC).

I wandered onto this article from a relatively neutral perspective and was immediately put off by the unprofessional tone, beginning with the very first sentence no less. Even undergraduates at least make some attempt to hide bias within their work. 81.159.219.248 (talk) 11:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that ID had arguments better than Sophistry and ignorance. -- Deus Ex MockinYa (talk) 23:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Correct me if my logic is flawed, and also if i do something inappropriate for Wikipedia, but the way i see it (and I've never been taught otherwise, I go to a christian school, so feel free to refute me) is that inter species evolution through natural selection doesn't make sense, because for new body parts to grow like a wing (for a crude example) loads more DNA information is required, and I don't see where that information would come from. Also, even if this was possible, Darwin states that the components of the wing would grow gradually, so until it was a fully working wing, it seems to me that it would just be a pointless deadweight, which would give the owner of the wing a disadvantage, therefore natural selection would remove it. Anyway, I'm just trying to gain a better understanding of the subject. Sullyj4 (talk)

Also please put in some way a year 10 could understand. Thanks Sullyj4 (talk) 07:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Re your question above about debates on Wikipedia: no, there should be no general forum-like discussion on any Wikipedia pages, although of course occasionally there are brief conversations on matters that are not directly helpful towards improving an article. The main point is that article talk pages are not a place for editors to express their views on the topic – use a forum on another website for that. There are pages where questions can be asked, see WP:Reference desk. You might very well post your question on evolution at WP:Reference desk/Science. I will mention that you should not expect teachers who are expert in matters regarding a religion to necessarily be expert in matters regarding science. Johnuniq (talk) 09:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks, although that last comment was probably not necessary. Sullyj4 (talk) 07:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Quick comment - yes, the "wing could grow gradually" would be problematic. But Darwin wrote that 150 years ago. You might get a sense of more modern ideas if you read Irreducible_complexity#Response_of_the_scientific_community. Guettarda (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Despite the blustering, it doesnt change the fact that the word choice by the writer is extremely biased. I teach science to middle school students. I've always taught among other things, that science is the subject for the curious, the methodical and the obsessed. When asked by students what makes the Scientific method "scientific" I usually respond that its the careful recording of the data, constant repetition of tests and the absence (to one's best ability) of personal bias in drawing conclusions. I don't have a personal opinion either way on the topic-- it makes teaching evolution in school much easier that way-- but I find it rather insulting that the writers of this article feel the need to judge for me whether or not Behe's proposition is scientific or not. Doesn't seem very scientific. I would think, that when making such a profound assertion -- "debunked", "nonscientific argument", etc-- that there would at least be links or footnotes right at those words that gave weight to the opinion. Jhaerlyn (talk) 19:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC) 13th Oct, 2010 ... and just as an example ... I dont see anyone treating his VERY debunked ideas about the solar system with any denegration or judgments as to whether or not he was reaching beyond his expertise. [[1]]

woops -- I didnt see that you did in fact site someone saying that its debunked... how unfortunate they dont actually present arguments... I'm going to have to hunt down those now --- my curiosity is piqued! Jhaerlyn (talk) 20:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

If you want a detailed debunking then I can recommend Young, Matt; Edis, Taner. Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism. Rutgers University Press. ISBN 0-8135-3872-6.. It has four whole chapters debunking Behe's claims from various angles (including the evolution of flight). But an encyclopaedia article is not the place for such detailed debunking -- at best it can hope to summarise experts' conclusions. Nor is this article the place for covering in detail what is covered in other articles. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with those who say the article is very biased. The point of the article seems to be more about casting doubt on irredcuible complexity than giving information about it. I hope someone can fix this soon. For a much better article, see Conservapedia's article on Irreducible Complexity

--72.145.188.221 (talk) 22:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• I find that Uncyclopedia's article is just as informative and slightly more helpful. -- Deus Ex MockinYa (talk) 18:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
• You're joking, right? Have you actually looked at the credentials describing Conservapedia? They don't even pretend to attempt to be unbiased in their presentation.
  I think the source of confusion is that Wikipedia does not use "unbiased" to mean "everyone gets their say" or "every viewpoint is equally valid". Wikipedia strives to be an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia are, by definition, tertiary sources. They do not present new information or even writings about new information (those would be the primary and secondary sources, respectively). Encyclopedia authors attempt to synopsize the writings of others. In doing so, we deliberately reduce the level of detail and condense the arguments, knowing that a reader who truly needs all the gory detail will be reading the original sources and not the encyclopedia. Furthermore, because we are synopsizing (and because we are all pseudonymous editors with no functional way for any reader to check on any editor's academic credentials), we must be very careful to only synopsize and not to introduce our own opinions into the article. We are not content experts - we don't know the 'truth'.
  The act of synopsizing, however, means that some rules must be followed to ensure that the presentation is appropriately balanced. Wikipedia's rules for controversial topics are 1) to present the encyclopedia coverage in approximately the same proportion as the external sources cover it (that is, if you had nine journal articles saying the world was flat and one saying it was round, the encyclopedia article would be 90% weighted toward the flat-earth position) and 2) that the coverage of science articles is heavily weighted in favor of articles and sources that abide by the scientific method (that is, repeatable, measurable facts vetted through the peer-review process and published in reputable independent journals with the appropriate specialty credentials). So, yes, this article is biased. It is appropriately biased in favor of the weight of published, scientific opinion on the subject. Rossami (talk) 06:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
• Although I do believe that this article seriously needs to work on its tone, linking to conservapedia is completely ridiculous. That wiki, by name even, has a policy of putting everything of a conservative POV and therefore is not something to base any article on. The^FSAviator ( T • C ) 21:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• Some examples of Conservapedia editing practices can be seen here.--Charles (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• A parallel online universe (subtitle: THE dodgiest place to go for information used to be Wikipedia.) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

I feel that there is intellectual dishonesty in the opening description of IC as pseudoscience. I undrestand that the represents the mainstream view, and that the mainstream adherents are the reliable sources being refered to. However, the term pseudoscience is not a scientific term. It adds nothing to the introductions and a pejorative (according to the Wikpedia article).

The mainstream view is that IC is incorrect, that it is false. Why don't you say, simply that IC is a false argument? You are hiding the word false in pseudoscience instead. That is better left in the mouth of the opponents not the reporter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.20.96 (talk) 15:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:FRINGE#Pseudoscience: "Theories which have a following but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. From what I read there, you *may* characterize the matter as pseudoscience in certain instances going with this Wiki rule. The description draws a line between pseudoscience and "Alternative theoretical formulations". I would like to propose that this line is not as clear as one would like, in general and in this specific instance.

The term, pseudoscience is a pseudoscientific term itself! There is no scientific basis to determine what is, and what isn't, except majority rule. Therefore it becomes a function of "group tnink" which itself is a sign of pseduoscience. The majority of scientists simply repeat what they understand, which for the majority is limited to a year or two of biology in this area.

The reality is that there is little evidence either way that demostrates the development (or evolution) of what are being called "irreducibly complex systems". Natural selection is currently a dotted line that is drawn from simple systems to more complex ones. That dotted line is called "science". Even though it isn't fully understood yet, it is believed that the process will be elucidated someday. Unlike the "theory of relativity" no scientific confirmation that tests this dotted line exists. So, while it is widely accepted, Natural Selection as the means of creating complex systems is mainly a matter of faith, not reason.

My point is not to argue the merits of NS or ID here, but only to suggest that the line between PS and alternative hypothesis is not that clear. The article on PS makes this clear. So while you *may* characterise the argument or position as PS, this rule does not mean that you *have to*. The rule that trumps all rules is that there "are no rules" : the spirit of neutrality of Wikipedia trumps all of them. Since you have the option not to characterize the argument, this position, in the interests of maintaining neutrality, you should not.

It is clear from the reading of the article that the IC position is held to be PS by the majority of the scientific establishment. That point is made in the first paragraph. Emphasising it does increase the bias, the non-neutrality of the article. This is a dangerous approach to take, just because you may - a slippery slope. Terming it simply "the position" or "the argument" is not putting it on the same level of acceptance as NS as the mechanism. It does put their scientific integrity on the same plane, which should be accorded to respected scientists who do hold this position.

I am not going to argue for the characterization of an alternative theortical formulation here. That is an argument that is long, complex, and beyond the scope of this forum (and my abilities most likely). If there is a place to make it, please let me know where? In the meantime, I propose removing any characterization of the argument, and letting the propoents and opponents speak for themselves in the article. To me, this is the prudent approach. Please think seriously about the issues that I am raising.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.23.195 (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

1. That determining what is, and isn't science, lies outside the scope of science is pretty much definitional, so hardly brings disrepute on the activity.
2. "Pseudoscience" is defined as things that are not science, that pretend to be, not "majority rule".
3. "The reality is that there is" mountains of evidence on the evolution of "what are being called 'irreducibly complex systems'".
4. Irreducible complexity is not an "alternative hypothesis" -- it is simply an attempt to plug one's ears and pretend that evolution can't happen.
5. I would point out that the standard here is WP:RS opinion, not WP:OR argumentation (WP:NOTAFORUM). As long as the vast majority of opinion is unequivocally that IC lacks merit, this article will give WP:DUE weight to that opinion.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Sir,

IC does not pretend that evoution does not occur - and I am not an expert in IC - that is not my position here. The question relates to NS as a means of creating IC systems.

I can see from your home page writings that you are against the IC argument. As a person with a decided position you should recuse yourself from being a judge in this matter. I am certain that "mountains of evidence" were used to convict the wrongly accused hundreds of times. There were mountains right? Until DNA testing came along. The reality is that there is a lot of speculation, and positing, and little hard evidence.

In a situation where the contrary view is so weakly butressed as the NS mechanisim is as pertains to IC, it is even more important to be considerate of another viewpoint.

As mentioned, you do not *have* to characterise the position in any matter. You have not addressed the issue of why characterise it as PS in the first place? Why don't you simply say it is incorrect, misguided and baseless? Why do you not simply say this, when I am sure that the majority of RS believe this? Why choose the PS term, which has the weight of science but is not? Would calling it what you mean be stupid for an encylopedia to do. (Just as calling it PS also is.)

Therefore, regarldess of how the reliable sources feel, you should give additional leeway to this position, not precategorize it at all, because once again the rule is that neutrality trumps all the rules, including the one you are invoking. You do not see this because you are not neutral.

What is the appeal process since this case is closed in your mind? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.23.195 (talk) 05:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

1. Just because I agree with the scientific consensus that ID (including IC) is WP:Complete bollocks is no reason to recuse myself.
2. Your 'certainty' is unsubstantiated, and thus worthless.
3. You keep saying "The reality is" and then making some ridiculous claim without a shred of scientific evidence or scientific credibility.
4. "In a situation where..." you have provided no evidence that "the NS mechanisim" is "so weakly butressed" as it "pertains to IC", I have no reason whatsoever to accept your premise.
5. I "do not *have* to" edit Wikipedia at all. but I may do so, and per WP:FRINGE I also may characterise IC as pseudoscience. In all likelihood however, it was not me who inserted that characterisation, and even if a accepted its removal, a WP:CONSENSUS would most probably arise to restore it.
6. "Why don't you simply say it is incorrect, misguided and baseless?" Because pseudoscience is the correct term of art, and because there is an article explaining the concept. And because we can and nobody has offered a good reason not to.
7. "precategorize" is both not a word, and would appear to be a meaningless claim/concept in this context. IC has been widely regarded as pseudoscience since before Wikipedia even existed, so its categorisation is decidedly ex post.
8. The first avenue of appeal would appear to be WP:FTN. After that, there is WP:Dispute resolution.

I would however suggest that you cease and desist using this article talk page as a WP:SOAPBOX, unless and until you have some WP:RSs to back up your claims, and your wish to change the article's language. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The statement in the lede that IC is a "pseudoscience" carries a single citation, so I attributed it to show who is saying it. Also, do all the sources in the "Response of the scientific community" actually discuss ID? If not, then it is synthesis to include them. Cla68 (talk) 08:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The "single citation" in question was to a very prominent historian of the ID movement, who was only saying what dozens of other WP:RS have said. I've added a few more, and could probably find even more if it becomes an issue. But I really can't help seeing this as anything more than rather pointless WP:BATTLEFIELD skirmishing -- the view of IC contained in the opening sentence is the unequivocal opinion of the overwhelming majority of the scientific community, so should be given WP:DUE weight. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

In addition Cla, if you had read as far as the second sentence you would have found additional sources. This is simple disruption. Guettarda (talk) 13:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

My understanding was that this is not the place to debate the merits of the argument, therefore I did not. The devil is in the details, and there are too many to discuss here. Precategorize in this context refers to your categorization of the position as a fact rather than an opinion before stating the argument (get it sparky?). It is like introducing someone: meet John Doe, he's a real A-hole but you make up your own mind. You have prejudiced the rest of the article with it. I have no objection to stating the opinion of the majority, my objection is including it as a fact in the opening. The next reference to PS shows that opinion source of it clearly.

The Ecyclopedia Britannica), which actually has qualified editors, for example, introduces ID as ... "intelligent design (ID), argument intended to demonstrate that living organisms were created in more or less their present forms by an “intelligent designer"." It does not say a pseduoscientific argument. It presents it as it is. Uncoloured. Unflavoured. Not precooked and predigested. Actually, to it's merit WP does also in its other references to ID and IC. It is in this article alone on the subject that its editors seem to violate common sense.

I am certain that you can pull WP rules out of your WP arse until the cows come home that buttress your position, but it doesn't change that at least in my opinion you are un-neccessarily slanting the tone of the article to confirm to the anti-IC position: therefore, IMHO it is not neutral. However, I will follow up on your WP references, come what may. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.23.195 (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:ASSERT: "Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested."

As you have presented no WP:RSs to back up your claims, I have nothing further to say to you. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The proponents of ID and IC claim that it is science but have not produced any peer reviewed scientific evidence to support this. It is therefore perfectly reasonable to define it as pseudoscience in the lead section. the lead just summarises what follows. The IP's arguments do not stack up and are full of assertions made without evidence.--Charles (talk) 17:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Great, we will await your references. I see nothing further to discuss in the interim. Guettarda (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It would probably be easier to maintain neutrality if ID had arguments better than Sophistry and ignorance. -- Deus Ex MockinYa (talk) 19:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Darwin's Black Box Image

I've been watching the incipient edit war over this image, and think that it's useful if the image is discussed on the talk page rather than editted in and out of the article every few hours. I personally share the concerns of Nyttend that the image fails NFCC#8 for this article. While the book is strongly related to this article, the image of the book cover does not help add to the reader's understanding of this particular topic. Sailsbystars (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It might help to include the relevant text from the fair use rationale here:

"The image is intended for fair use in Irreducible complexity

* The image shows the primary reference for the topic of the article. This is the book that introduces the concept of irreducible complexity and explains its significance. Irreducible complexity is the major subject of the book.

* This image adds explanatory power through the intended first visual impact for browsers of the book on irreducible complexity.

* This image of the book cover provides useful information for identifying and locating the book in a manner that prose cannot...

* The image does not threaten to replace the commercial value of the image to the copyright holder, but instead increases such value to the copyright holder.

* The use is minimal, and involves no internal content from the book, but rather illustrates the copyright holder's publicized presentation of the topic.

* Its presence significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding...

* The image is not used in such a way that a reader would be confused into believing that the article is written or authorized by the owner of the logo.

* This image does not limit the copyright holder's ability to profit from the original source, nor will it dilute the importance or recognition of the book in connection with its organization.

That would provide something substantial to discuss. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, I had looked at that page. If the image were free, I would have no problem with adding it to the page. However the two points regarding explanatory power and id'ing and locating the book I do not believe are compelling. On explanatory power, in particular, the illustration on the cover of the book does nothing to explain what the concept of irreducible complexity is about. I also believe that an aid to locating the book is insufficient justification for including the image in an article not directly about the book itself. All of the other images in the article illustrate important concepts, but a book cover is not a critical concept. Can you see where I'm coming from? Sailsbystars (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• I would point out that both of Nyttend's removals were based upon the demonstrably false claim that no fair use rationale for this article had been given (not that the rationale made was insufficient), and as such it could reasonably reverted without comment. If the claim was being made that the rationale is insufficient, an argument as to why it was insufficient needed to be made before removing the image. I will admit to having no strong opinion as to the sufficiency of the rationale, or equivalently whether there is a compelling argument for its retention in this article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

@Sailsbystars: Absolutely. And I agree. Perhaps the most compelling point to include the image was the fact that this was the book that launched the term. I reverted because the reason given was that the image was not covered in the rationale. That was not the case. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

In fact an argument could be made that this book is the only formal articulation of this argument (certainly it is the only one that has any prominence). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposals to wording of the opening paragraphs

It seems any of my nominal edits to the introduction are being repeatedly blocked by Charlesdrakew, an individual it seems who has accrued some notoriety as a committed Darwinist zealot, and in his conviction almost blind to the notion that the opening paragraphs sound so one-sided and biased as to make this entire page read like a 12-year old's twitter rant. Now Mr Charlesdrakew, let me make this clear. I am neither creationist nor darwinist, but I would like to make the opening paragraphs sound more professional. I propose the following:

"Irreducible complexity (IC) is an argument by proponents of intelligent design that certain biological systems demonstrate features of complexity that are so lacking in redundant components that they are unlikely to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring chance mutations."

This is far more representative, I think, of what this hypothesis proposes.

Proposals to changes in wording for neutrality purposes:

The term "non-scientific", in the very first sentence, is off-putting and gives the article a feel of unprofessionalism and bias from the offset. I propose that if you wish to put "non-scientific" into the introduction, I would like it to be referenced and elaborated on (something inherently unsuitable for an introductory sentence). To state later that there is a scientific consensus against IC, then to provide a reference, is more than enough to convey this argument, in my opinion.

"However, some evolutionary biologists have proposed various models by which such systems can in fact evolve." to replace "Evolutionary biologists have shown that such systems can in fact evolve, and Behe's examples are considered to constitute an argument from ignorance."

The sentence:

"It is rejected by the scientific community,[2] which overwhelmingly regards intelligent design as pseudoscience.[3]"

reads as if it is refering specifically to irreducible complexity, but the references refer to intelligent design in general. I propose that it either be removed and the references transfered to the main ID article, or that the wording be changed to

"Intelligent design is rejected as pseudoscience by evolutionary biologists."

Either way, from a literary perspective, it looks out of place in an introductory paragraph describing IC.

82.132.248.167 (talk) 13:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

"notoriety as a committed Darwinist zealot" among whom? Your fellow creationists presumably. Darwinist is not a term that sientists normally use. I merely pointed out that changes to an agreed text on a sensitive subject are best discussed first. I am not the one trying to change it.--Charles (talk) 17:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

"Your fellow creationists presumably.""Darwinist is not a term that sientists normally use." Please don't try and destroy whatever credibility you may think you have with childish and presumptious comments such as this. And there is a first time for everything, even in your narrow world view. I'm sorry to upset your much coveted self-esteem here, but there *have* been concerns regarding your neutrality on this issue from people other than creationists. Now, do you have any objection to these proposed changes? 82.132.139.231 (talk) 12:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

What, 82.132.139.231, is a "Darwinist"? Please note our no personal attacks policy – allegations that another editor has "notoriety" as a "zealot" are unacceptable, and can lead to blocking. As for your proposed change, it doesn't reflect the cited source – while you may think your definition is better, such original research by you isn't suitable for Wikipedia – you're welcome to propose a reliable source for a definition, but not to make your own interpretations. Your proposal is also rather incoherent, though I think your intention can be grasped. Not an improvement. . . dave souza, talk 13:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

"Darwinism" refers to the Darwinian mode of descent with modification. It is not, as CharlesDrakeW would claim, a term exclusively used by creationists. Note for example, Eugenie C Scott's comments in the 1997 Firing Line debate. The term is commonly used by biologists to distinguish Darwinian gradualism from other proposed modes of descent with modification, and is (as pointed out below) in increasing usage following the failure of the neo-Darwinian synthesis and the formalisation of the Extended Synthesis.109.144.217.32 (talk) 23:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

What is a darwinist? This used to be a term almost exclusively used by creationists. More recently (since circa 2007) it's being used by those among the evolutionary biology community who have raised concerns with the precepts of neo-darwinismn. For example, among those who attended the Altenberg conference in 2008, there are a spectrum of opinions regarding the viability of NDE; some, such as Stuart Newman, being very vocal that it is simply no longer tenable in the context of cellular physiological developments as of the late 20th century. 86.189.3.191 (talk) 10:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

As someone who is not a proponent of irreducible complexity, I still found the bias in this article more blatant than anything I've ever read on Wikipedia. Rather than rewording the opening paragraph, renaming the article "Criticism of Irreducible Complexity" seems like a more appropriate change. Also, the article has a bitter and condescending tone that falls outside of scholarly standards. Wikipedia's article on the flat earth model is far less presumptuous. In fact, I'd recommend reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth for an example of how to professionally present an idea outside the current scientific consensus. (Abbefaria (talk) 01:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC))

Do you have any specific improvements you'd like to make that you want to discuss here? Gabbe (talk) 07:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

@Abbefaria In light of your recommendation to make this article's tone more similar to the Flat Earth article's, might I suggest that this article make greater use of the past tense in its opening paragraphs? e.g. "Most pre-modern cultures have had conceptions of intelligent design", modelled on "Most pre-modern cultures have had conceptions of a flat Earth." Similar changes could be made throughout the opening paragraphs to reflect historical scientific ideas, and then the current consensus (i.e. the existing paragraphs) could be introduced. Carderne2 (talk) 12:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I have just made some slight changes to the first section to improve the neutrality of the article. In particular I made the following changes:

1. Opinions are opinions, not fact. Specifically removed label "pseudoscientific" from first sentance and relinked it in the second where it is more clearly rendered as an opinion.

2. Removed absolutes, specifically changed "rejected by the scientific community" to "rejected by a portion of the scientific community" as I'm sure we would agree, this is not unanimous otherwise there would be no argument on the topic.

3. Edited the statement that "systems can in fact evolve" to read "systems could possibly evolve" as this sort of evolution is not observed science but a theory.MrWalko (talk) 00:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Your edit was properly reverted. The claims you make above are the same as those that appear in many Internet forums and other non-scientific sites, and are simply wrong. Read the sources in the article. Johnuniq (talk) 03:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Your arguments for reverting these changes are unsubstantive. Thankfully, given that Walko's changes to point 1 and 2 have been rightfully reinstated in some form, I would now like to defend point 3. The reference in question alludes to an empirico-inferential (empirico-abductive) argument, something that cannot, on epistemological criteria, qualify as a directly verified scientific fact as the wording in the article suggests.109.144.217.32 (talk) 23:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

It's been a few weeks since this change was proposed. If there are no objections to it, I'll go ahead and implement them 217.39.6.242 (talk) 05:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

A few weeks? This section was started 2 years ago. If you have a proposal, please start a new discussion. I'll archive this section so it's less confusing. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Why not just call IC what it is, an excuse created by religious people to support their claim that their god did it, which they decided before they even knew about the topic.--27.33.105.42 (talk) 09:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

From what I have read and been a part of on WP, any comments as to veracity or acceptability need their own section. A section entitled "Acceptance in the scientific community" would be the place for a brief relating of who criticises or supports within the community and what they say with adequate references. George (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree whole-heartedly with 82.132.248.167 that this article is in no way neutral, as an encyclopedia article should be. Suppose that this entire idea is bogus and that we discover evidence to debunk all Creationist thought. Suppose that what some once viewed as "irreducibly complex" were in fact perfectly reducible. But then suppose that the idea of evolution is wrong and that scientists over the past 150 years have been deceived. Sure, evolution is the accepted idea for modern scientists, but it could always be wrong. Spontaneous Generation was accepted dogmatically for thousands of years, as was the Flat Earth idea, but these were proven false. This article bears no hints of neutrality and is based on - as it would seem - the rantings of its various editors. If I were to read this article with no previous knowledge on the topic, I would leave thinking, "Irreducible complexity is a stupid idea imagined by deluded religious fanatics," and not, "Irreducible complexity is an idea derived by Creationists that many scientists refused, though there is still credible evidence in favor of it," as I should. As an encyclopedia article, this page should state facts and nothing else. Mwakin21 (talk) 23:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I added a break here, because this appears to be a new direction in the thread. Makes it easier to edit too. The article is about Irreducible complexity, not anything else. To be absolutely neutral, we have to provide reliable sources that support the scientific POV. We have to show that it is a fringe theory, but still describe accurate what is IC. In general, we state in the lead that a particular fringe theory is not supported by scientific evidence, community, etc. Then rip apart the fringe theory in a section of the article. If you don't think this is doing it well enough, add some lines, but make sure they're sourced. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Mathematically identifying irreducible complexity

Did the proponents of this concept ever make any attempts to quantify irreducible complexity. The article includes a couple examples of attempts to qualify certain things as irreducibly complex. Was there ever any publication quantifying the reducibility of something? It would be worth including in the artcle if it existed. i kan reed (talk) 15:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe it is conceived as a binary quality, rather than a continuous quantity. Either something (generally a biological system) is irreducibly complex or it isn't. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, no wonder it's easy to dismiss then. I'll avoid the WP:FORUM discussion, but that's a fairly indefensible concept. Very little modern science, especially biology, makes simple binary divisions of anything. I was thinking that they had to have some moderately complex mathematics to help facilitate the "you just don't understand it" defense and fluff up the scientific appearance. i kan reed (talk) 17:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

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,[2] 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.[3] 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, [4] but she does have a stock photo of a really sciency looking lab![5][6][7]. . . 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)

The first sentence is not a "criticism", it is a factual and neutral (read: reflective of sources) account of the topic. We must define the topic, which means our article should begin "IC is X", and our sources are clear that X is a claim, which is presented as scientific but is not.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

So do you disagree that the homeopathy article's method of defining the thing before calling it pseudoscience is better?Qowieury (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

For one, there are no good sources that say as much. Additionally, it violates WP:Weight by primarily using the majority viewpoint's definition (although this is a stretch) to define a term used by those in the minority. The edited version does not state that it is scientific, so it is superfluous to say that it's not. Again, definitions don't cover what something isn't, they cover what it is. Attaboy (talk) 20:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I have now simply flipped the order of the first sentence around, though I think that that makes the sentence more unwieldy and redundant and far prefer my earlier edit that was reverted by Jess. But I am willing to keep trying to find a way that we can define the word before we say anything else about it.Qowieury (talk) 20:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• All of us are open to editing, new refs etc., but you can't make elementary mistakes like conflating the scientific concept of emergence with IC. They have nothing to do with each other, but do suggest competence issues in editing this article. --I am One of Many (talk) 20:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

While you might believe that they have nothing to do with each other, the creator of this article topic claimed that he was taking one and applying it to the other. So they do have at the very least a historical association which is what I was trying to express. Your suggestion about lack of competence suggests that Wikipedia needs some kind of quiz show so that we can rank our competence in philosophy, but since they have not yet instituted such a feature please just avoid your original research into my competence. But as I said in that edit, the main thing that needs to be done is that Michael Behe has to be introduced before he is called Behe in the next sentence. I am concerned that your ideological defense of science is getting in the way of good principles of writing, such as the fact that the definition should come before the rejection. I will try again to introduce Behe but I will not mention his use/abuse of emergence theory. But let us discuss the first sentence. Do you definitely disagree that like all other articles on pseudosciences, the definition should come in the first sentence? See Homeopathy, Flat Earth, and Dowsing. If we must, let us at least go the way of Astrology which throws the word pseudoscientific into the definition but at least has a definition as the first sentence. I really think that, if there were not a political controversy about this topic, the change would be non-controversial. Please understand that I am not arguing for IC nor am I trying to reduce the criticism nor am I trying to in any way suggest that natural selection is not the scientific consensus. I am not coming at this article from a controversial standpoint, but simply that I read it and noticed that the definition which ought to be in the first line was not. I am not even arguing any longer for my initial concerns that pseudoscience is an inappropriate term for a wrong hypothesis. Just that the first sentence should be a definition of the word as it is in all other pseudoscience articles.Qowieury (talk) 20:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

In my latest edit, I went the route of Astrology and included the word pseudoscientific in beginning of the definition, which I consider bad practice, but hopefully this will finally satisfy those who fear that someone will read this article and not reach the second sentence before rejecting all of modern biology?Qowieury (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

That's not too bad. Maybe the second paragraph should be distributed between the first and the third? The "However, evolutionary biologists..." could be moved to the end of the first paragraph, and the first sentence about Behe move to the beginning of the first. Another possibility is to put a little more detail into the lede by better outlining the content of the article such as several paradigm examples put forth, and a sentence or two describing the issues raised. Just a thought. --I am One of Many (talk) 21:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

"No good sources" is nonsense.

• Good Science, Bad Science, Pseudoscience, and Just Plain Bunk
• Atheism Religion and Life (A Layman's Perspective)
• Denying Science: Conspiracy Theories, Media Distortions, and the War Against Reality
• Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem
• Irreducible Incoherence and Intelligent Design: A Look into the Conceptual Toolbox of a Pseudoscience
• Pseudoscience: A Critical Encyclopedia: A Critical Encyclopedia

...among many others. Do you have any sources that suggest the mainstream academic community does not view IC or ID as pseudoscience? Because I see a lot that suggest they do. We're not definining the topic by what it's not, as you keep saying: "not science" and "pseudoscience" are not equivalent; pseudoscience is an active and positive description of something that claims to be science, but is not accepted as such, and that definition perfectly summarizes IC in a way no other description can.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Jess, I think you are responding to an earlier part of this discussion? The question on the table was originally whether pseudoscience is an appropriate name for a wrong hypothesis. I think consensus was reached that it was (though I have my doubts merely on etymological grounds). The question has been adapted somewhat to whether the first sentence of the article should be a definition of the term as all the other articles on pseudoscience have it. And secondarily, whether the word pseudoscience should be in that definition, or in the next sentence. There is no debate about IC going on. Do you concur with my most recent edit of the first sentence, or do you have some other suggestion?Qowieury (talk) 22:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, this is primarily a discussion of viewpoint, not fact, but the fact is that there aren't scientific sources that apply the term pseudoscience to the concept of IC. Attaboy (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Attaboy - there seems no discussion on this one for prolonged while, and I think the label that appeared Feb 2015 is basically a recent Wikipedia fad for the vague pejorative "pseudoscience" rather than being any substantial news or movement in ID and ID literature, and rather a fringe view or just an 'everyone knows' argument not one coming from sources and cites. On the other hand, this article actually describing Specified Complexity (too complex to have evolved) rather than Irreducible complexity (a step that cannot be done by increments/no part can be removed). Will start a different thread on that one Markbassett (talk) 01:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Pseudoscience again

• Maybe I shouldn't just butt in on an ongoing discussion like this, but I'd just like to share my view on how the current article is posed, and what I find issue with:
  1. "Pseudoscience", as a modifier to any concept, feels pejorative, and likely would to most users with enough curiosity to find this article on their own. The community at large has made it abundantly clear to be so.
  2. There is an ongoing argument about whether "pseudoscience" as a modifier can be applied to a "concept" like irreducible complexity. I want to tease out here two separate concepts, one being the "idea" of irreducible complexity, and one being the claim "irreducible complexity exists in the world". The "concept" defense applies largely to the former, whereas the latter is what would be "pseudoscientific", since it actually applies it to reality. Science (and its negation, pseudoscience) can only apply to reality (specifically the subset of things testable and verifiable).
  3. As it stands, we're probably trying to label the latter as pseudoscience, which seems justified; however, it is easy to interpret the language as targeting the concept, not real cases of its existence (as I did on first reading). In terms of order, this places more importance on (1) the idea being pseudoscience over (2) the content of the idea/argument itself. That smacks of prejudice, which seems far more alien to an encyclopedic source than pseudoscience, and implicitly discredits the rest of the article. Wikipedia's fight is with ignorance, not pseudoscience. Unrealistic ideas should be discredited (successfully or not) solely through force of reason and reference, just like any encyclopedia, and subverting that principle solely for the benefit of TLDR folks who can't make it past one sentence does not seem at all worthwhile. No shortcuts, please, they're only fuel for opposition at best. 50.185.66.241 (talk) 23:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, maybe you should have started a new discussion instead of butting in on an existing one. (Or maybe you should have consulted the archive and found lots of old threads on the same subject, containing refutations of your reasoning.) So I added a new header.

"Pseudoscience" is an accurate description. The serious literature sees it that way. So you are in favor of hiding that fact because the reality pains you? That is not the usual way we write encyclopedias. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• I think both of your interpretations of irreducible complexity are not quite right. Irreducible complexity, as used in this article is about an argument used by defenders of ID against the evolution of complex adaptations. They intend it to be a type of scientific argument, which it is not. That is why is is labeled up front as pseudoscientific as supported by reliable sources. I hope that helps. --I am One of Many (talk) 08:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Very well, I just hold to the idea that an argument of something being pseudoscience is perhaps stronger if you first state the idea, and then why it's pseudoscience. Starting with a label feels inflammatory, which I feel undermines the article's content. So much of this discussion page is about that first line - don't you think that means something, @Hob? As much as you may assume, I'm not someone "afraid of reality" - I'm just aware of people with different viewpoints, and how to respectfully disagree with them. (If it helps, I'm a software engineer who thought really strongly about being both a physics and a math major - not sure how many people in that bucket subscribe to ID in the slightest, but that would require an amazing amount of doublethink - more than I can manage, to be sure.) 50.185.66.241 (talk) 21:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

So you are shifting your position, saying that the concept can be called pseudoscientific but not in the introduction?

Respect has to be earned. I have studied the ID movement for decades, and it has been inherently dishonest from the start, trying to hide its religious motivation because the US laws say religiously motivated ideas cannot be taught in public schools. Articles about other pseudosciences, such as astrology and homeopathy, are also called that in the introduction. And those who are sympathetic to those pseudosciences, because they fell for the science mimicry, also unsuccessfully tried to remove the term. I see no reason to pussyfoot in this case. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:00, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the miscomm - I accept I am One of Many's interpretation of the term "irreducible complexity" as a valid topic of the article, and I don't strongly adhere to the claim that the "concept" be separated from the way it is used - I just mentioned it as an attempt to clarify what I find troubling about the introduction. Wholly OK with not treating the article as about the concept, and instead about its usage in ID. Would just note that both astrology and homeopathy allow the definition to finish before mentioning pseudoscience, and I think they're both more rhetorically effective for it.

Re: respect, I'm not asking you to respect the movement, I'm asking you to respect your audience. Your audience isn't a movement, it's a human being - one who, perhaps, is searching for knowledge, but is wary of so much media filled with propaganda and agenda rather than content. In particular, they're probably wary of being looked down on, and mentally stop listening once they feel patronized. I don't want to avoid labeling IC and ID as pseudoscience, far from it - I just want to communicate that to people as effectively and clearly as possible, particularly those on the fence. I assume that's also what you're trying to do? 50.185.66.241 (talk) 11:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Hob Gadling - I think it's a vague pejorative so poor wording choice, but more of WP concern to me is it's not being faithful to the cites as it's mostly not used by the significant or serious science and legal items so is WP:FRINGE elevated above due WP:WEIGHT. Meh. Inflammatory advocates and press on either side always have this kind of general issue of playing word games to ignore, distort, suppress, or manipulate the situation -- Seems to me that is just them doing their job. I think the notion of whether IC Concept can be judged or just claims on it is interesting but I'd have to see that in cites before it would be usable in the article, and right now the article is still struggling with confusing whether a statement is about IC, SC, or ID. Mostly from what I see, the IC concept seems entertainable as a discussion topic exploring pathway concerns, and it seems the next step of claims that causes ire -- the dualism jump in logic that lack of path ergo God. Frankly I'm not clear whether to prove irreducibility is logically stuck trying to prove a negative, but the objections to it I saw were more speculating on spandrels or deconstructive paths as alternatives means if one was proven to exist -- not on calling it vague names. Markbassett (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

It is not vaguer than "science", and it is spot on. "Advocates on either side" sounds weird to me - one side is just saying it how it is, and the other side either does not get it or pretends not to get it. And they try, like the pseudoscientists they are, to sound like their opponents (mimicry) in order to confuse laymen. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Hob Gadling - re the concern on advocacy word games... I think a fact check to the above may help:

• "Science" is still working the Demarcation problem of what is science, and pseudoscience doesn't have a community trying to define itself -- it's just an emotive phrase that has become more popular in Internet age of insulting and hence comes up at WP such as the recent Talk:Faith healing.
• This is getting offtopic a bit; we are talking specifically the Irreducible complexity article, and Michael Behe in particular, who is a professor of biochemistry that brought a concept to the community discussion. Not a "pseudoscientist" -- and whatever that is, who "they" are, or where they went with IC seems off-topic for an article specific to IC and Behe, maybe more suitable at Pseudoscience or Intelligent design movement.
• You're also showing that 'pseudoscience' is pejorative. Pejorative, meaning 'having negative connotations, disparage or belittle,' so use of a word associated here to 'either stupid or lying'... is obviously a pejorative.
• As to 'advocates on either side', it's ironic that what you've said is what both sides naturally claim -- to be right ('just saying how it is') and it's the other that (presenting false dichotomy) 'either does not get it' (is stupid) or 'pretends not to' (dishonest). I view this as just standard advocate word game of trying to frame things by stating the conclusion wanted as if it's a fact, plus biasing further discussion with something contentious or slipping in an insult distractor. Expect lots of such this election year! But for WP, it is a pretty complete failure of WP:NPOV if it's not even identifying the other POV and also excluding that any possibility a valid other view could ever exist. If this article were just reporting 'widely said pseudoscience' would be one thing, but here it's elevated far above WP:WEIGHT or distorting cites since the common association is instead 'creationist', and the article was using cites about ID or SC instead of IC cites and talking about SC instead of IC. (My thread above before this one about Bad definition is working on that one.)
• That said, I can also see a WP concern that the first-line include SOME caveat, since the first line is all Google would show and what many would stop at. I'm in agreement with what 50.185 said at the start that starting with an immediate pejorative comes over as incorrect and inflammatory, but I'd hope something not vague and pejorative might be found.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:08, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

This is just more of the same: postmodern waffling. Whether something is science or not is in practice decided by peer-reviewed journals. IC is not promoted in those, it is promoted in other venues, avoiding peer review. Behe wrote books about it - that is one of those venues. To anybody who knows how science works, it is pretty clear that this is not science. You have nothing new to say, just the usual excuses for pseudoscience. Those are boring, they have nothing to do with the article any more, and I am leaving this discussion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Markbassett Sorry, this just tickled my navel-contemplation nerve. The way I see it, irreducible complexity is, at its core, an argument that says "X cannot happen". This actually seems well-defined, and a potentially falsifiable, scientific claim - you falsify it by observing X, or inducing X. For example, P-symmetry in physics asserts that all mirrored systems behave identically to the original, i.e. there is no mirrored system which behaves differently from the original. It was widely believed until it was falsified in 1957 studying the weak force, and the discoverers got a Nobel for their work.

The problem I see is that IC is not empirically falsifiable - the required timeframe for observing or inducing evolution of most complex bio-systems from their simpler analogues is unreasonable by human standards. This makes it useless for the scientific method, but it's just enough to make "IC is unfalsifiable" slightly weirder to say than "existence of God is unfalsifiable". There is certainly a component of "IC implies ID, ID implies God, Not(God) therefore Not(IC)" going on, though, which just adds fuel to the fire. Personally I think that if the article discusses IC purely in the context of ID, it should be integrated into the ID article, just to avoid all this confusion. 50.185.66.241 (talk) 11:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

50.185.66.241 - mmm think it's not the timeframe but more of the classic logical difficulty of trying to prove a negative, and one might view that instead as meaning evolution is unfalsifiable or that empirical does not cover logic concepts like IC and Natural Selection very well.

• For WP content it seems empirical testing might be cited as having been dismissed for this thread or else cited as a point argued by opposing sides and discarded as irrelevant by others. That 'simpler than X does not function' is a concept, and it seems reasonable to talk about a chain of evolutionary successive improvements have to have started somewhere but then how does one get to that starting point or even know it? Ever since Darwin wrote "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” (Origin of Species) the question of how to prove that is a sticker. (Though despite the Darwin quote, if one did figure out how to prove a thing irreducibly complex I think that means just that one case is shown not evolved and does not affect whether other cases were.)
• For the purposes of WP article and this thread topic 'Pseudoscience again' though, I don't see much article-useful cites re testing. There is a teeny bit of test-talk at Michael Behe and both sides advocate posturing use testing as a football to argue over and specific cases like flagellum, but these are not actual empirical tests or talks of empirical tests. Things seem more at the philosophy of science level of logic-discussion that a IC case might have been reached from an evolutionary spandrel (sideways) or evolving deconstruction - clarifying that 'evolution' of 'change over time' rather than 'successive improvements' might have preceded an IC-stage. (Closest to 'empirical test' seems to be at the point of for specific cases whether a path or lower step is (or is not) figured out, a pure papers-review level rather than empirical as in an observation of event.)
• In other words, a discussion of a test of 'nothing simpler functions' for one case seems to mean that one case has nothing simpler that functions, and that one case was not reached by prior step of usual association of evolutionary as 'successive improvements' but it does not mean that there was no predecessor or that natural selection overall is disproven.

Cheers, Markbassett (talk) 14:26, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Markbassett - Re: testing, wasn't thinking of mentioning testing beyond stating that "IC is not supported by the scientific method" re: pseudoscientific. I don't really see evolution as untestable in the same way, since evolution often necessitates not-yet-observed intermediates, which can be found at a later date as empirical support. Genome sequencing offers further shared genetic material that suggest evolutionary relationships and ancestry. Agreed that IC-the-logical-concept is unrelated to empirical testing, but it thus similarly lacks support from the scientific method.

Before that, though, the definition itself is still a bit of a quagmire. Looking back, I defined IC to myself (in the context of supporting ID) as "that which necessitates ID", i.e. "that which refutes at least one case of evolution", which is testable, but circuitously and exceptionally impractically so. That may not be something that matters to anyone else, just trips me up a bit.

It seems like Darwin's line is indeed a focal point of IC, but I feel a little sad about defining IC based around that line, in part because I think the idea of spandrels just didn't occur to him at the time. I do see Behe's counterargument as cited in Luskin's article, but it feels like a big logical fallacy to me; in particular, the line "Their previous functions make them ill-suited for virtually any new role as part of a complex system" seems to throw exaptation to the curb without sound reasoning. Just ask any Rube Goldberg machinist what they'd do with a quality bottle cap, and you'll get plenty of "new roles as part of a complex system". Of course, that is its own form of ID - but proteins don't follow the same rules as garage trinkets, and will constantly and spontaneously assemble and reassemble into different compatible configurations. If he claims that it's the assembly of (completed) subparts A, B, C, D, etc. into a whole that is the IC step, I think the trinkets analogy is pretty unfair and unrealistic. If only we had a few hundred million years to just wait around to see if 10^30 teeming bacteria without any flagellum genes can spontaneously evolve an equivalent...

That said, I'm plainly not contributing any new content/sources to the article, so I'll stop here and move it to a blog instead (maybe) 50.185.66.241 (talk) 13:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed Restructuring

It seems to me that this entry is structured so that it does not come across or indeed function as a comprehensive, generally informative article, but rather as a polemical essay discussing one aspect of intelligent design, and tending towards one argument and conclusion with respect to this aspect. Such a structuring seems an inappropriately narrow discussion of the topic as a whole, and skews the framing so that it risks being not optimally in keeping with Wikipedia’s general educational purposes. I know there has been plenty of discussion on this problem with the article already, but I add my voice because the more perspectives and general consensus on there is on this as a problem with the entry, the more objective and broadly-based is the conclusion about the neutrality issues involved. First of all, I suggest the two articles on irreducible complexity - the one referenced at the start of this article, that pertains to the engineering term; and the one pertaining to the biological concept - are merged. Next, I suggest a rewriting and re-organising of this entry so that it first defines the general concept of irreducible complexity (i.e. a complex, the individual parts of which function as a whole or not at all), then outlines its basic premises as a theory and some examples of things that appear to demonstrate irreducible complexity, then takes the reader through its origins and history, then provides a list of its applications (e.g. engineering, biology, philosophy), and finally summarises discussions of various aspects of these, where relevant, from both proponent and opponent points of view. This, in my view, would iron out any issues with tone, structure, emotiveness, neutrality and general weighting of discussion, without changing or lending any subjectivity to the actual facts pertaining to the theory and its use/history/premise. I also think this would eliminate the need to define the concept in terms such as as scientific, pseudoscientific, philosophical etc. thereby removing an opportunity for weighted/emotive rhetoric. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.52.201 (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

86.131.52.201 - Against merger as WP:COMMONNAME is the Behe usage and this specific subcase is notable enough to be it's own article. My impression is also that IC from Behe did not come from or go to the generic concepts, but instead is independently articulating where he thinks the gradual-improvement model would not fit and went on to discussions of scaffolding and spandrels as alternatives to accumulation of parts and just how hard it is to even define 'system' or 'function' or prove anything. But I'll suggest just follow the cites and put whatever they have here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I think wheels can be added as an example

The absence of biological wheels might be an example of irreducibly complex system. This article

--by Huhu9001 (talk) at 05:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Article doesn't argue or infer irreducible complexity at all. Even Dawkins is referenced in the article. Robynthehode (talk) 07:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

To Robynthehode: Yes, but shouldn't it try to look neutral?--by Huhu9001 (talk) at 05:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Please be clear. 'It'? If you mean shouldn't the article be neutral then no. Due weight and verifiable sources are what is used in Wikipedia Robynthehode (talk) 22:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

To Robynthehode: Do you mean all the contents in Rotating locomotion in living systems do not worth a single sentence in this article?--by Huhu9001 (talk) at 03:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

To Huhu9001. I don't know what you are arguing for. You provided an incorrect reference article which I highlighted (as above) and now you have linked to a Wikipedia article that doesn't argue that the biological wheel is irreducibly complex. A sentence from the article even says '

Molecular biologist Robin Holliday has written that the absence of biological wheels argues against creationist or intelligent design accounts of the diversity of life, because an intelligent creator—free of the limitations imposed by evolution—would be expected to deploy wheels wherever they would be of use'. So unless you can provide a verifiable reliable source that argues for the biological wheel as an irreducibly complex biological system then no it shouldn't be included. Robynthehode (talk) 07:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

To Robynthehode: Oh, I found that there is some misunderstanding. Did you missed this sentence in paragraph 6 of the article given above?

The wheel, on the other hand, is an irreducibly complex system:

--by Huhu9001 (talk) at 12:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this sentence out. However this sentence is in the context of an article arguing why wheels have not evolved because of the limitation of natural selection. The meaning of irreducible complexness in the article is used in an engineering context. One cannot infer from this observation that this irreducibly complex system of a wheel is an indicator of a divine designer which is the subject of this article. I suppose if written correctly the wheel could be included as long as it was not used to support the creationist idea of irreducible complexity. However including the example of the wheel is likely to confuse the articles discussion and no intelligent design advocate has used it as an example as far as I know. I just don't think there is a proper source to include the wheel in the context of this article so it is best left out Robynthehode (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

To Robynthehode: I can not agree to the idea that an example of irreducible complexity should be left out from the entry of the very title irreducible complexity just for some reasons sounding like "this entry has been occupied by the creationist-vs-evolutionist debate". After all here is not intended for propaganda. I will make an edit introducing this point as brief as possible and I hope it look acceptable.--by Huhu9001 (talk) at 09:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit for now because there is not consensus on whether such information should be included. The subject of this article is whether there are irreducibly complex biological systems (my emphasis) that (it is argued by creationists) indicate intelligent design. The example of the wheel is not an example of a biological system but an engineering one. I think the way forward here is to open this up to views from other editors. Until we get opinions of other editors and a consensus is reached please leave the article as it is. Robynthehode (talk) 12:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

To Robynthehode: Alright, I suggest a much easier choice: rename this entry as Irreducibly complex '''biological systems''' (my emphasis) that (it is argued by creationists) indicate intelligent design. That would prefectly fit your need. I am bored.--by Huhu9001 (talk) at 12:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I may misunderstand the argument. (If so, I suggest that other readers may misunderstand, and therefore it needs rewording.) As it appears to me, it seems to be arguing: X (the wheel) is Z (intelligently designed). X does not appear in Y (natural life). Therefore Y is not Z. That does not seem a sound inference. For example, the wheel does not appear in Neanderthal culture. TomS TDotO (talk) 13:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Re-reading my comments and checking over the article and Huhu9001 commments I have realised that I have not stated my objections clearly to the inclusion of the example of the wheel in this article. The article is about irreducible complexity as it applies to biological systems and and how it has attempted to be used by intelligent design (ID) advocates to justify an intelligent designer (the Christian God usually). As this is the focus of the article any inclusion of a non biological system that is irreducibly complex into this article will confuse the reader. The wheel is a non biological irreducibly complex system from an engineering point of view and has not been used by ID advocates as a justification precisely because it does not appear in nature unlike their attempted use of the of the eye for example. The articles referenced by Huhu9001 merely state that the wheel is irreducibly complex and that biologists don't know (yet) why the wheel hasn't evolved in biological systems. The information and arguments from these sources don't belong in this article because they are approaching the notion of irreducible complexity from different sides. So to prevent confusion over the differences and because there is no reliable source to show ID proponents using the wheel as an example of irreducible complexity this information should continue to be excluded from this article. Robynthehode (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

To Robynthehode: I have only one question remaining. Does this article's title read biological irreducible complexity, or irreducible complexity (no engineering contents), or irreducible complexity (this entry is for creationist-vs-evolutionist debate only)?--by Huhu9001 (talk) at 16:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

While the title of an article is relevant it is not the be all and end all of what content is included or not. The lead is pretty clear it says 'Irreducible complexity (IC) is the argument that certain biological systems cannot evolve by successive small modifications to pre-existing functional systems through natural selection.' (my emphasis). I have reverted another editors inclusion of the new section because consensus has not been reached on whether the section should be included or not. Happy for other editors to make their case but inclusion of it is against Wikipedia policy until consensus is reached.Robynthehode (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I restored the section and was reverted by User:Robynthehode. I don't find their arguments convincing, and I don't believe the existence of one disagreeing editor is grounds to hold up the addition of the section. I will wait another day to see if any other editors object; if not, I intend to conclude that consensus is sufficient to re-add the section. Consensus does not require unanimity, or the satisfaction of all opposing viewpoints. —swpb^T 17:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

swpb^T. I have reverted your edit. Consensus has not been reached at all. The inclusion of the material is still under discussion. Jumping into a discussion and making your edit is contrary to protocol and good manners. If you don't agree with my argument state your own reasons rather than just saying you don't agree with me and reverting my revert. Wikipedia is based on reasoned discussion to achieve a consensus.Robynthehode (talk) 17:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I stated why I re-added the section in my edit summary. At some point, we are not obligated to honor your claim that "consensus has not been reached". I've offered to wait to see if anyone else has something to say; I'm not obligated to do that either. As I said, if no one does, I will re-add the section. —swpb^T 17:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

You are obligated to honour my claim that 'consensus has not been reached' because the inclusion of the information was under discussion by two editors. One opposed to the other. One other comment was made by another editor and then you jumped in with a bold but wrong edit. I, on the other hand offered out the discussion to other editors when Huhu9001 and I seemed to be at an impasse. There is a due process to offering this out and waiting for responses. Offering if someone has anything else to say and then editing without a reasonable amount of time between the offer and the edit is against protocol and good manners. You have not contributed to the discussion on the talk page stating your reasons. It is not enough to say you stated them in your edit summary. It is in the talk page that your reasons have proper visibility for all editors to see and comment on. I urge you not to re add the content without due process as described. Robynthehode (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect, you are wrong about protocol. This discussion appears to have run its course, in that no one here is likely to change their mind. WP:CONSENSUS, which you should re-read, does not allow decisions to be held hostage by a single editor's claim that more discussion is needed. —swpb^T 18:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Here is another editor who objects. This example does not help. TomS TDotO (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks swpb^T for replying and with all due respect you are the one that is wrong about protocol I believe. I have re-read WP:CONSENSUS and I think that the various steps in reaching consensus have not been followed or fully followed. Without wanting to go through each of the steps laid out in WP:CONSENSUS the discussion stage on this talk page reached an impasse between the two editors discussing this issue. The advice is that 'When editors have a particularly difficult time reaching a consensus, several processes are available for consensus-building (third opinions, requests for comment)'. However it is instructive that 'In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view.' I would argue that there are quite a few steps in consensus building on this issue as detailed in WP:CONSENSUS before the article should be considered to be changed. As is stated in WP:CONSENSUS 'In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.' I am happy to discuss this further, have comments from other editors and I am happy to be persuaded that the inclusion of the material that is the subject of this dispute is justified. I just don't think anyone has made the argument yet for its inclusion.Robynthehode (talk) 19:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion as a sub-section of #Stated examples, which gives undue weight to one source presenting it as a counter-argument to IC. At most, it could be briefly mentioned in #Falsifiability and experimental evidence. . . dave souza, talk 20:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose adding this material as presented. Agree with Dave souza. It's a stretch to try and draw conclusions from the fact that there are no biological wheels. I'd have to see how it would be used in "Falsifiability and experimental evidence" but it doe seem like some mention could fit there. Meters (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose if we're asking for formal vote, that's mine. If we were looking for examples of "irreducible complexity" which are produced by natural evolution, I suggest that a better example would be Evolution of mammalian middle ear ossicles. I haven't proposed that because I don't have enough citations, but IMHO it is a better, positive, example than the non-existence of wheels - but, if pressed, I could dig up one citation. TomS TDotO (talk) 13:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Irreducible complexity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070724203349/http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~hsr/fall2005/mu.pdf to http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~hsr/fall2005/mu.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140905230611/http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Wedge.cfm to http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Wedge.cfm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://debatebothsides.com/showthread.php?t=38338

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)