Talk:Irreducible complexity/Archive 5

Further 'stated examples'
I noticed that the article currently only includes three of the "stated examples" (the blood clotting cascade,the eye and bacterial flagellum), so I took a look at Darwin's Black Box to see what the others were:
 * cilium
 * gated and vesicular transport within the cell
 * the immune system (I seem to remember that it is actually the adaptive immune system that Behe considered to be IC)

Are we in a position to expand the article to cover any of these? Also does Behe actually consider the eye to be IC? This article is rather vague on this point, and the Darwin's Black Box doesn't list it as an example of IC. HrafnTalkStalk 14:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Is the Intelligent design article irreducibly complex?
If not, then doesn't it make sense to make that article shorter and put more of its contents onto subsidiary pages or specialized articles? Just pointing that out. &mdash; Rickyrab | Talk 06:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * These things evolve always. Articles fork and so on. And other subsiduary articles propagate.--Filll 06:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Since it involves this article...
Requests for Arbitration

Thought it might be good for you to know. Adam Cuerden talk 14:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Opening paragraph
In the opening paragraph, we're immediately asserting that ID is creationism and not science. It has very little to do with the article, I think. Just describe what the irreducible complexity argument is. The statements are about ID in general, not even the irreducible complexity argument. If we had a specific statement that the irreducible complexity argument was weak, or pseudoscience, that might be different, but this seems inappropriate.

I think the whole article has some POV issues, and seems to be pushing an anti-ID agenda.GusChiggins21 (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

IC is a major component of ID, and therefore it is reasonable to discuss briefly what ID is. It would even be shorter, except for people who feel as you seem to, frantically trying to get us to add more material and cites. Since people complain to have more material and cites in the article, do not complain if we put more cites and material in the article in response to these complaints. You cannot have it both ways. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 20:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I thought I was actually asking you to cut some material... GusChiggins21 (talk) 07:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes I know. But I think getting us to not describe ID in this article, and not to include any statements about what it is, is unrealistic.--Filll (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * My only problem with this opening paragraph is that at the moment it doesn't make much sense. It explains that irreducible complexity is an argument made by advocates of intelligent design, then says "The consensus of the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science...".  Up to that point, there has been no suggestion that anyone says that intelligent design is science, so it would make just as much sense to say "The consensus of the scientific community is that intelligent design is not a ballroom dancing routine".  I'd be inclined to simply remove this sentence - if people want to know about intelligent design and its reputation in the scientific community, they can go to that article; but if it's going to stay in, it at least needs as much context as "Proponents of intelligent design advance it as a scientific theory", or similar.  TSP (talk) 16:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think something similar needs to stay in, though agree that the current wording is rather choppy. IC is one of the 'sciencey' arguments for ID, so the (lack of) scientific status of ID generally & IC in particular is relevant, but it needs to be tied together better. HrafnTalkStalk 16:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The introduction is not the place for arguments against IC or ID; that is why most articles have a criticism section. Especially, whether ID is science or creationism has no bearing on whether IC is scientifically valid.  At present, the article is a textbook case of whole to part.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.152.168.23 (talk) 17:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * See WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV/FAQ – improvements will be welcome, but the majority scientific view must be clearly shown at the outset. .. dave souza, talk 17:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The lead is currently quite large, and could probably do with some pruning so that the most important & most relevant points aren't lost in the wash ("a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points"). E.g. that IC has been rejected by the scientific community is directly relevant, and deserves to stay, that ID generally is rejected is more tangential, and deserves serious consideration for being moved further down. HrafnTalkStalk 18:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I am personally in favor of shorter more succinct LEADs, if possible.--Filll (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Criticism-section indicates that criticism sections are frowned upon, according to the principles of Wikipedia. This even is reflected in statements of Jimbo. So if you want that to change the principles under which Wikipedia operates, you should go to one of the policy pages and endeavor to change the policy there. This is not the place to do it if that is your goal. You are on the wrong page if that is the case.--Filll (talk) 18:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

What should be in the lead?
It occurs to me that, given the large amount of information in the lead, it'd probably help to try to decide this in a systematic manner. I'm proposing that we slot points into the 4 categories below. Simply place the point into one of the categories & sign (or just add your signature at the end if you are agreeing). If you disagree with a categorisation, don't delete it, simply place it & sign in the category you think it does belong in. I'm also creating a "discussion" section, in an attempt to prevent the categories from getting cluttered. Hopefully this should allow a consensus to evolve. HrafnTalkStalk 09:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Critical to understanding IC/definitely should be in lead

 * Definition of IC HrafnTalkStalk 09:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * but shorter Filll (talk) 13:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Behe originator HrafnTalkStalk 09:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * but shorter Filll (talk) 13:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * IC is an argument for ID HrafnTalkStalk 09:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC) Filll (talk) 13:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * IC (specifically) has been rejected by the scientific community HrafnTalkStalk 09:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC) Filll (talk) 13:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Useful to understanding IC/probably should be in lead

 * IC explicitly evaluated & rejected in KvD HrafnTalkStalk 09:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Filll (talk) 13:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Adds a small amount to understanding IC/probably shouldn't be in lead

 * ID (generally) has been rejected by the scientific community HrafnTalkStalk 09:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Filll (talk) 13:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Specific examples of IC HrafnTalkStalk 09:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant to understanding IC/definitely should not be in lead

 * Specific examples of IC (at least in that level of detail) Filll (talk) 13:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
Most of the material is just too verbose and too long, at least in my opinion. The long versions can be moved to the body, and short short summaries left in the LEAD.--Filll (talk) 13:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed HrafnTalkStalk 14:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Pruned material from the lead
(In case any of it is considered useful for the article body) Contrary to the claims of intelligent design supporters, the consensus of the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science, but creationism. In 2005 in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial in which Behe testified in support of his claims about irreducible complexity the United States federal court ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", Behe is on record stating he believes in evolution, but does not think life evolved from next to nothing. The argument is used in a broader context to support the idea that an intelligent designer was involved, at some point, in the creation of life, against the theory of evolution as far as creating all life (Behe admits life has evolved over millions of years, but does not believe life began through random chance) which requires no designer. In a manner of speaking, the IC argument is a definition of the "designer", or at least "what was designed", a definition that has proven elusive in the past. The most common examples used in argument are the complexity of the eye, the blood clotting cascade, or the motor in a cell's flagellum. The examples offered to support the irreducible complexity argument have generally been found to fail to meet the definition and intermediate precursor states have been identified for several structures purported to exhibit irreducible complexity. For instance, precursors to the flagellum's motor can be found being used as ionic channels within bacteria, known as the Type III Secretory System. This is true for most of the structure of the flagellum in general; of the 42 proteins found in the flagellum, 40 have already been found in use in different biological pathways. Even Behe's toy model used to illustrate the concept, the mouse trap, was countered by critics including biology professor John McDonald, who produced examples of how he considered the mousetrap to be "easy to reduce", eventually to a single part.

The mousetrap analogy...
...is a bad example... Foofighter20x (talk) 12:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's already cited in the article ([26] currently). HrafnTalkStalk 12:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

LOL, I just noticed that and came back in here to remove my comment. But, since it's here... I'm not going to upset anything here, so I'm not going to remove it, but there is an extra period in the mousetrap caption... And I'll admit that I missed the cite since it was on the caption, and not in the text. (edit: that is, at least, the cite is not in the next anywhere in the proximity of the section with the picture, other than the caption...) Foofighter20x (talk) 12:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's also in Irreducible complexity (a couple of times) HrafnTalkStalk 13:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe I have a better example? Be warned, this goes on a bit. The point about irreducible complexity appears to revolve around an object not being functional when some of the parts are altered or removed. What if one takes an actual designed object? Let’s use that ubiquitous item, the automobile;

1)	Remove the air from the tyres. Can it still be driven? Of course. The handling may deteriorate, but there are many who have driven on soft or flat tyres. 2)	Remove the tyres from the wheels. Can it still be driven? Again, the answer must be “yes”. Hands up anyone who has watched assorted police video shows with people doing exactly that after continuing with flat tyres which eventually fall off the rims. 3)	Remove the wheels. This is getting extremely silly, but in fact does not necessarily prevent the cars being driven. Control will be impaired but present, as will traction. (eg; demonstrated on “Vroom, vroom” – a Sky TV production, where they had a race with three cars like this. 4)	Remove oil from the suspension. Bumps are still smoothed out, although the damping has gone. Look at what happens when driving on worn shocks. (This gets weird on a roundabout on a motorbike…lol) 5)	Shorten or remove the suspension springs. I have personally driven a car with worn shocks which had the ride improve when the front springs snapped. (Seriously). The car is certainly still drivable, but sits at an odd angle. 6)	Remove or change the brake fluid. Bubbles in the fluid may decrease the effectiveness, but you would be amazed at how little fluid you can retain in your system and still (eventually) stop the car. If need be, other liquids will work. You can use water, or washing up liquid, although this is not recommended for anything more than a very temporary measure. 7)	Remove part of the steering wheel. (Hands up who used to watch “Knight Rider”?) In any event, one can remove the entire steering wheel and still be able to control the car, but with great difficulty. 8)	Remove all of the seats. One can still sit inside the car and drive. 9)	Change the fuel. You can run a car on quite a few things other than petrol or diesel. I ran a diesel car on straight vegetable oil for a while, as it is half the price of diesel where I live. You can use various mixes of ethanol and other flammable liquids in petrol engines. (You can even run them on hydrogen or methane). 10)	Remove the bodywork. This often has little effect on the vehicle. 11)	Remove/damage the chassis. Depending on the vehicle, you can even split the chassis, while having the bodywork still hold it together. (eg; Top Gear, and the “indestructible” Toyota Hilux) 12)	Remove as much as half of the vehicle and still have it driveable. A front engined, front wheel drive car can be driven without the back half attached, as long as fuel is still available. 13)	Exchange sections of the vehicle. Customisers often like to build trikes with a VW back end, and a motorcycle front end.

I am sure there are further examples I could give, but you get the idea. Irreducable Complexity appears to be flawed at best. If one can rule it out for an ARTIFICIAL object, why should we accept it for a NATURAL one? 85.158.139.99 (talk) 11:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Lance Tyrell

Lance Tyrell, the examples you chose are rather poor ones. Why not discuss one of the more complex parts of a vehicle - the engine. Now let's say a horse-driven vehicle begins to develop an engine through the process of natural selection: first a crankshaft develops as a straight shaft (this provides no additional function to the vehicle); then, a couple of vehicle generations later, crank throws grow on the shaft, precisely phased so when one piston is exhausting the other is in intake (still no appreciable function, and remember evolution can’t ‘know’ that the phasing will one day be necessary; there is no intelligence or planning involved); then bearings appear on the throws, connecting rods on the bearings, and finally pistons on the connecting rods, but still no function; after a few more generations an engine block develops around crankshaft and  pistons, with precision-machined bores – all at random (and still no function for natural selection to appreciate, but a lot more deadweight for the vehicle to carry); now a camshaft appears, with cams precisely matching the crankshaft phasing (no function, more deadweight); then poppet valves evolve, complete with springs and other necessary components ; now let’s assume this particular engine dates back a few million  years, so it doesn’t  have an electronic ignition system; instead it develops a ‘simple’ ignition system consisting of a distributor, ignition coil, spark plugs, battery and all the interconnecting wiring, and all precisely designed and synchronized with the rest of the engine components; then a fuel pump, with all its inner mechanisms, is added (again at random – natural selection can’t know that a pump will be useful, even if one already exists somewhere else). Now, finally, many generations and millions of years later, the engine finally acquires a simple function – it can covert fuel and air into torque. Remember that during those millions of years, the engine was only deadweight, a disadvantage that would certainly have driven the poor vehicle into extinction long before the engine had a chance to fully evolve. I haven‘t mentioned other items such as the oil pump, radiator, cooling fan, precisely positioned lubrication and cooling galleries, and other ancillary components, as the engine could theoretically function without them, except that it would breakdown after a couple rotations. Natural selection could of course “realize” that these items would be useful.

The example of the human eye is also a poor argument against irreducible complexity. The article states that “eyes originated as simple patches of photoreceptor cells that could detect the presence or absence of light”. There is noting simple about photoreceptor cells. They are analogous to, and just as simple (or rather just as complex) as a photocell device. The Wikipedia article on photoreceptors has this to say about them: “More specifically, the photoreceptor absorbs photons from the field of view, and through a specific and complex biochemical pathway, signals this information through a change in its membrane potential.” “Phototransduction is the complex process whereby the energy of a photon is used to change the inherent membrane potential of the photoreceptor. This change thereby signals to the nervous system that light is in the visual field”. —Preceding unsigned comment added by V.R.Tiago (talk • contribs)


 * At the risk of running afoul of WP:NOT, this brings to mind the rhetorical question posed by Stephen Jay Gould in one of his columns: Why don't cheetahs have wheels? He points out that wheels would allow the cheetah to move much more quickly, and so give it a considerable survival advantage.  However, there is a lack of viable intermediate forms, and so no way for wheels to develop incrementally.  Anyone have a precise reference that can give this some more context?   siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 12:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Since the conversation has already drifted, I will say that both these comments are off base. The argument is not simply whether the body can function during an intermediate stage; it is whether organisms with intermediate body parts would be selected against. If you have soft tires you pay more for fuel and maintenance which is a selective pressure against having an automobile (given the advantage is currently greater but that depends on increased productivity versus gas and maintenance prices). If you remove the tires        from the rims, you will soon be able to outperform the car with a horse thus selecting against the car. On silly rabit's comment, I will say that to say that Cheetahs would have a competitive advantage with wheels is ridiculous. Legs give you a full range of motion that wheels do not. Lets see a cheetah try to spring on a deer with wheels on (sure it can be done with a spring system, but it would no doubt necessitate a much larger amount of energy which would make it competitively disadvantageous). Also this assumes that the designer would want to make the most competitively advantageous mechanism while in reality aesthetics and other considerations are likely at play.--Jorfer (talk) 17:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If anyone has a reference for the paper, that would satisfy me. My memory of the precise context of the analogy is limited.  In particular, I don't recall precisely what Gould's point in posing the question was.  However, it seems quite germane to any discussion of irreducible complexity.  His point seemed to be that there are potential adaptations (such as wheels) which would be precluded under evolution by natural selection because of a lack of viable intermediate forms.  This bears a certain similarity to the idea of so-called irreducible complexity.  It might merit looking up.  It might not.  siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 17:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Obvious Bias
This particular page, even after a bit of liberal cutting, is still obviously bias. "They" and other pronouns which shows the original writer as obviously in disagreement with the proponents of ID combined with the unneeded addition of the Dover Trial (which has been cut) shows that the original author was far too bias. Scrap this article and get someone less involved in the debate to restart it, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.94.206.196 (talk) 21:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This isn't a puff piece for ID – see NPOV: Pseudoscience, NPOV: Undue weight, NPOV: Making necessary assumptions and NPOV: Giving "equal validity". ... dave souza, talk 21:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Before you criticize, learn about the principles on which WP operaties, such as WP:NPOV.--Filll (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I read your quaint little bit on Neutrality and find that ID seems to be the exception to the rule. You have purposefully removed reliable sources because some scientists disagree with ID.  Hell, people have even pointed out counter arguments that have been published to no avail.  From what I've read in the ID article and the articles which stem from it, the writers have a personal bias against ID as does the moderator.  There is no neutrality to be found here.


 * And the writer's bias *does* matter. If the writer is bias towards one direction or another the writer will side with one view or another, verifying certain facts and omitting other facts.  Please, learn to grasp this simple concept unless you wish to dispose of the idea that Wikipedia is a source of knowledge and not just a source of facts pandering to the majority.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.94.206.196 (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be slightly confused.

Yes, I read your quaint little bit on Neutrality

It is not my bit on neutrality. It is the policy of Wikipedia.

and find that ID seems to be the exception to the rule.

How so? The NPOV policy states that each topic should be presented in proportion to the prominence of each view in an area. ID is a WP:FRINGE area in science, with way less than 0.1% of the scientists in the relevant fields subscribing to ID.

You have purposefully removed reliable sources because some scientists disagree with ID.

Like what? Nothing from the Discovery Institute is reliable on most science.

Hell, people have even pointed out counter arguments that have been published to no avail.

Where?

From what I've read in the ID article and the articles which stem from it, the writers have a personal bias against ID as does the moderator.

Huh?

There is no neutrality to be found here.

It is not about neutrality. It is about NPOV. They are not the same thing. Sorry.

''And the writer's bias *does* matter. If the writer is bias towards one direction or another the writer will side with one view or another, verifying certain facts and omitting other facts.''

This is not the principle on which WP is built on. See WP:Writing for the enemy.

Please, learn to grasp this simple concept

Why are you lecturing us when you clearly do not understand science or Wikipedia?

unless you wish to dispose of the idea that Wikipedia is a source of knowledge and not just a source of facts pandering to the majority.

Actually that is exactly what NPOV says. We go with the mainstream majority view. We do not promote WP:FRINGE ideas. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

So, hang on, we cite sources no matter how reliable they are, yet things about creationism, no matter how reliable they are, get removed?

I'm confused, if I remember correctly it was said "cite sources, no matter how truthful they are"? Because obviously people with PHDs in the related subject is reliable. But they're a minority view. Is it just me or does WP conflict sometimes? Please clarify, I'm confused. 60.241.56.17 (talk) 01:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * See WP:NPOV, WP:NPOV/FAQ, WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:RS for clarification. .. dave souza, talk 06:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to give us an example of any ONE creationist claim which has been publised and properly peer reviewed and confirmed as being even remotely accurate as borne out by further observation. In addition, point out any creationist claims which are not just dogmatic statements and may in fact be regarded as falsifiable. If you are unhappy with the label "creationism", and prefer ID, then use that instead, as the two are essentially interchangable.85.158.137.195 (talk) 11:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Lance Tyrell

This page is clearly bias. When you go to the abiogenesis page, you don't see anything talking about an ignorant argument. Abiogenesis has never been proven, far from it in fact. Even the page says it's how life could have come from non-life. Intelligent Design, however, has facts like the fact that life can't arise by itself for it. Intelligent Design has plenty of facts going in it's favor.

No objective article is going to discuss someone's intelligence unless it was a study on it. An objective article would also not be trying to refute what the article is about, but simply tell what it is about and what the people who are for it believe. I was very surprised on how bias all of the pages involving evolution and God were, saying Creationism is a myth for instance. I haven't labelled myself a Creationist just yet but that is offensive because there is plenty of fact that supports the theory, and it is a theory, not a myth. Intelligent Design is also a theory, not a myth.

Macro Evolution and Abiogenesis are not the same as the law of gravity or the idea that the Earth is round. You will be hard-pressed to find anyone that refutes either one of those or any evidence that goes against it but there are plenty of arguments against macro evolution and abiogenesis so why are these treated higher than others?

This is bias simply for the fact that you cannot prove intelligent design wrong just as you can't prove evolution wrong. None of us were there to see it so neither should be written on wikipedia as if they are flat-out fact. Frankly, as long as evolution/abiogenesis cannot bring some proof of life coming from non-life, proof that there was even a chance that one protein could form by chance, or prove how one species can gain new information and transform into another (which you'd have to show us. Can't prove bones ever had a baby), then they should be talked about on equal levels if this is a non-biased site.

If you want to be bias, go to SkepticsWiki or CreationWiki. True Wikipedia should be truly objective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.167.41.242 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 7 March 2009
 * See WP:TALK for the purpose of this talk page, which is to discuss specific proposals for improvements to the article, not to debate the subject. . . dave souza, talk 15:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Abiognesis doesn't present itself as a scientific theory, thus it isn't comparable. That said, it is a scientific hypothesis with a testable premise, which alone differs from intelligent design since ID is untestable, as the premise is the conclusion.  These are the basics of the use of the scientific method.  Irreducible complexity being thoroughly rejected by the scientific community is the only testable area of ID, and it has clearly failed that by its reception in peer-reviewed journals.  This is actually fairly soft on ID for NPOV, IMO.  Life not being able to rise from non-life is also not a scientific fact.  Also, your use of the "law" of gravity - which is a theory - and the term "macroevolution" imply more than just a little bit of a lack of comprehension of science.  Just brush up on the scientific method before you get into these kinds of issues - and your comprehension of the word myth, for that matter.  After that, do come back and share your concerns. 98.168.192.162 (talk) 08:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Quoting Judicial opinons doesn't make them relaible sources
WP:RS I can cite Supreme Court opinions chapter and verse that state African-Americans aren't eligible to be citizens, what Hrafn is asserting in here the lead is that an aspect of scientific inquiry is pseudoscience when what he's attacking is intelligent design. There is a difference and it is pushing a Point of View, that judicial opinion cited doesn't change the fact that the subject of this article is a scientific theory of which is still open to scientific inquiry. The fact that the larger issue of Intelligent design is open to legitimate charges of being non-scientific is irrelevant to this article.Awotter (talk) 06:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * And I can cite chapter and verse where SCOTUS overturned that. In any case, the section that I cited was a finding of fact -- based on expert scientific testimony, not a finding of law. It is WP:RS -- take it to RS/N if you want to claim otherwise. IC is not "scientific inquiry", and the cited article makes very clear that it is "pseudoscience". As for Awotter's specious argument that "there is a difference", IC is the most prominent argument underlying ID (in the words of the KvD decision "As referenced, the concept of irreducible complexity is ID’s alleged scientific centerpiece."). I am therefore restoring this material. HrafnTalkStalk 06:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that the finding of fact was also based on testimony under oath of proponents of "irreducible complexity", and it's not a theory, it's a theological conjecture. .. dave souza, talk 06:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I've actually tried to add some information to this effect. I noted, without changing the direct quote from the ruling, that it was a bench ruling with a single judge. (Simply adding the line, "The result of the bench trial was the ruling by the judge...")This is a verifiable fact that is not in dispute by anyone. It is consistently removed by editors. I am pretty amazed that multiple people would want to remove facts from the discussion that are known to be true by all parties. This is an extremely discouraging sign and quite damning to the concept of Wikipedia as a whole. Even verifiable, undisputed fact is subject to removal by whomever is the more zealous party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.200.224.236 (talk) 04:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * All rulings in US courts come from judges. I don't see why it is necessary, unless you are adding it to make a WP:POINT, which your comment "to this effect" seems to implicate.--Aunt Entropy (talk) 05:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, if something is factual, relevant and not editorial, I don't understand how or why your thoughts on whether it is "necessary" dictates the article. I can't imagine feeling comfortable enough to decide what facts I thought were necessary for other people to see or not. It is very clear you are trying to make a point with your edits. The difference being that I am adding facts, and you are removing them. Why you feel comfortable removing facts within an assembly of knowledge is for you to determine. The WP:POINT is not applicable as there is no editorializing whatsoever, other than what a reader may infer from the facts. Under your judgement, any listing of any fact could be considered a WP:POINT because the contributor clearly wanted the reader to know the facts that he/she was listing, and therefore, was trying to make WP:POINT. This is a desire to edit something out looking for a justification.  It is not Wikipedia's job to edit what people infer, but simply supply them with verifiable facts.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.200.224.236 (talk) 05:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It is redundant, and therefore not relevant. Only single judges conduct trials where the result is a ruling rather than a (jury) verdict. A a bench trial is simply a trial conducted by judge. Therefore the current wording covers everything already. If the reader wants more detail/clarification, they can follow the link to KvM. HrafnTalkStalk 07:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It is quite obvious that you don't find it irrelevant or you wouldn't be so determined about changing it. I find this frustrating, but I am not the zealot you are, so I won't continue this change back and forth. I have made my case that the added details are factual, add clarity, and are only redundant to those completely familiar with the legal system. Those completely familiar with the legal system, however, would also know that a judge's ruling is not scientific data itself and is  strange addition here when listed as a conclusion to a debate.  Even though I agree with the ruling that ID is religious in nature and its conclusions are not science, the line from the ruling here is quite inappropriate. A judge's ruling is a legal opinion and does not belong as factual evidence in an encyclopedic entry. The ruling only belongs in the section on the court case itself, not as an conclusion to other ID arguments.


 * The fact is, however, that the man did write that, so my opinion of whether it was appropriate or not seemed far less important than whether it was factual. I am not about to put myself in a position where I am rationalizing the single-handed removal of verifiable facts. The idea that "if someone wants clarification" they can look it up when a few words will do at no cost to you, it quite obviously a ploy to justify a pre-determined outcome. You either want to control want the reader infers, and that is to infer a greater weight and authority to a single man's opinion than it should have (there is no other reason for that ruling to be mentioned in that section) or you simply have a knee-jerk reaction that any change that is not damning to ID must be an entry from and IDer, so therefore must be resisted. Either way, you are removing facts based on your own desired outcome, no matter how you justify it. And that, it seems, is Wikipedia: the greater zealot controls the information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.200.224.236 (talk) 14:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is a fact. However, your intent appears to be to weaken the statement by introducing doubt into it.  If someone is found guilty of a crime by a court, we don't try to second-guess the court's decision by saying "According to Judge so-and-so, he was guilty...", unless we have some other discussion to bring to the table.  If and when ID goes up before SCOTUS, then we can cite that.  But before then trying to introduce language implying that the court ruling is unreliable is very much against NPOV.   silly rabbit  (  talk  ) 14:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec)Judges make rulings. Saying "a ruling by a judge" is needlessly wording.  Adding additional words which convey no additional information (to the average reader), while making the sentence more difficult to read helps no one.
 * I have no idea how you come to the conclusion that "facts" are removed and that somehow this achieves some "desired outcome". The meaning of the sentence is unchanged by your text.  The readability though, is considerably degraded.  Guettarda (talk) 14:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 14:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok I just want to test a premise
Now this may not seem relevant at all except it follows the basic premise of irreducable complexity, I am only trying to get a biologist here to state what is false in my premises, since my own ability in biology at a molecular level does not extend much beyond transcription translation and the krebbs cycle. I know strictly speaking this isn't the place for it, and that wikipedia isn't a forum (although from this page you couldnt recognise that), but a biologist opinion on what I write would be very much appreciated. In no way am I trying to be 'original', I dont have the intelligence, but Im trying to get a better understanding about the feasibility of the theory within my own mind, so comments (however critical, even with insulting words) would be much appreciated.

As I see it evolutionary changes on the microscopic level, or the 'nanoscopic' level, are due to errors in DNA replication, It would be great if someone could explain to me (or point me to an article) that explains why these errors in relication occur. These errors have a percentage chance of happening with every complete mitotic cycle (i.e. with DNA replication), again I would like to know what probability there is of a mutation. So... if an incorrect protein is produced due to a mutation, the chances are it will not be harmful and will not be benefical (am I right?). Looking at it from a bigger picture, chances are with each DNA mutation a cell will not be radically different, I may have an erroeous understanding here, but is not the whole of an organism the sum of its parts? Therefore the whole of a cell is the sum of all of its molecular constiuent parts, governed by genes in the deoxyribose nucleic acid. Looking at it like this, in order for a cell to change to a notable difference in function will take many reproduction cycles, and the chances are that this function will not be passes down when the organism as a whole is reproduced. The chances of a favourable change occuring are very slim, and even slimmer of being selected. Therefore, without any quantitative data before me, based on my sketchy knowledge of the relationship between macroscopic and mincroscopic evolution, it could theoretecally take too much time for an amoeba to evolve to what we are today (i.e. longer than it has taken), without a kind of guiding factor- that is the theory behind IC is it not? If so, could someone tell me why exactly it is rendered pseudoscience, im sorry if I have been to icoherent for anyone to understand me, but I have attempted to write down what I know with an incomplete knowledge of evolutionary biology.

BTW, not that anyone cares, but the problem I have with pure natural selection is that it can represent aspects of pseudoscience, many defend it simply based on the fact they do not like their belief systems challenged, and they do not fully understand why the theory is currently superior themselves. People sometimes defend it with irrationality and ignorance, often with ad hominems against attackers. Additionally it (as it is intended to be), is a backwards worked post hoc rationalisation of the development of the species, with scientists like Dawkins (and here i cut some slack, with anthropamorphising and simplification sometimes being necessary for public intellectuals), claiming that evolution 'justifies this', or that X develops due to the fact that cells 'know' this is the most favourable option. This view is not only problematic as it is entirely macroscopic, but also because it again works backwards in a post hoc fashion, it also seems to grant the idea of a kind of independant goal or intelligence to evolution as a physcial force or even an entity, something which should be confined to religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.39.142 (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In asexual reproduction, the hypothesis you posit above would be correct. Mutations occur almost exclusively as a result of errors and the vast majority are either irrelevant or fatal to the organism.  The point you're missing is the law of large numbers.  There are so very many amoeba in the world that some beneficial mutations are inevitable.  The other issue is that even a very small benefit to the organism's survivability will propagate across the environment in an amazingly small time because of the compounding effect of the organism's reproduction.  There have been a number of numerical analyses studying these factors.  I don't remember whose work I first read on this issue but I think it might have been a Steven J Gould essay.
 * In sexual reproduction, your starting hypothesis is incomplete. The act of sexual reproduction itself increases the error rate, increasing both the irrelevant and fatal and the beneficial mutations.  Again, most mutations will be irrelevant or fatal but the law of large numbers applies.  By the way, we almost never see the effects of the fatal mutations, though, since they usually fail long before the organism is born.  The point is that with so many sexual interactions (think millions of sperm per sexual encounter, for example), some fraction of beneficial mutations are inevitable.
 * The other problem with your analysis may be an underestimation of the error rate. Without numbers, it's hard to say that you've actually underestimated but remember that in some conditions, errors are dramatically enhanced.  Different atmospheric conditions resulting in higher levels of ultraviolet have been suggested as a cause of local increases in mutation rates and thus in evolution rates.  Again, it might result in a very high proportion of fatalities but it can expose mutations that were previously irrelevant but are now beneficial.  And since the change has killed off all the competition, the new organism can rapidly fill the niche.  Think of the rapid and recent growth of antibiotic resistant bugs as an example - an evolutionary change that has expressed itself independently many times in a matter of only a few years.
 * Rereading your analysis, I also think I see another point worth discussing. You posited above that it should take multiple reproduction cycles to produce "a notable difference in function".  That would, I think, not generally be true.  If the DNA of a single-celled organism is changed, that change will be immediately propagated to the organisms future offspring.  In a multi-celled organism, it depends on which cell.  A change to the DNA of a muscle cell will do nothing (except perhaps cause cell death or some other malady such as cancer) but does not get propagated at all.  A mutation in one of the sexual stem cells, however, gets propagated immediately.  In neither case does the mutation even have to be expressed in the original organism.  By the way, recent research has shown that mutations are not limited to DNA.  Other elements within the cell that were long thought to be completely controlled by the DNA are now being recognized as having a controlling or modifying or sometimes mitigating capability of their own.
 * I don't claim to be an expert in this area either. I count myself merely as a well-read amateur.  I think you would be more compelled if you read the numerical studies directly.  I hope this helps some, though.  Rossami (talk) 00:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I thank you very much for your time, and Its niice to be awnsered when you dont quite have the knowledge to ariculate yourself correctly. Your answer shows me that there are things which I would need to read up on further (e.g. meiosis) before I can make a conclusion in my own mind, and I guess there needs to be quantitative data invlolved (which is quite difficult to get). Thanks for pointing me in the right direction and thanks agian for bothering to decipher what I have written.86.140.39.142 (talk) 13:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) DumZiBoT (talk) 18:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Kitzmiller ruling ID science" :
 * "We therefore find that Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large." Ruling, Judge John E. Jones III, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
 * Memorandum Opinion, Judge John E. Jones III, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

The antibody example
In a recent edit, the anti-body rebuttal was removed. A key part of the justification given was that the article no longer holds the anti-body argument as an example to be rebutted. I can't dispute that logic but given the popularity of the argument and the consistency with which it seems to be rebutted, I wonder if it should be added back in both places. I've seen it mentioned at least as often as the flagella and more often that the coagulation cascade.

The other part of the removal was that "it appeared to be original research". I remember when it was added to the article. While it was clearly added in the author's own words (which we have to do to avoid copyright problems) and while the tone may have been inconsistent with the rewritten tone of the rest of the article, it was sourced content. If you want a quick and dirty source for the counter-argument, you could use the Scientific American article from several years back. Rossami (talk) 22:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * At the Panda's Thumb blog recently there was some discussion about the evolution of the adaptive immune system with references to the research literature that may be useful to (1) provide the required citations to avoid the "original research" problem, but also, maybe to (2) provide a more recent claim from the "intelligent design" advocates about the immune system. Panda's Thumb: Luskin and the ID movement on immunology: immune to evidence TomS TDotO (talk) 12:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed it. If it was not original research, i apologise, but without citations it is impossible to see this. If re-added, it still needed to be rewritten, it was a very convoluted explantion, imo. But overall, what does it really add to the article? It is just a more complicated claim of IC, with a more complicated explantion for why it is not IC. How many examples need to be added? It is obvious that all the examples ever given by inteligent design advocates are dismissed by unbiased scientists, do they all need to be shown? If this is one of ther most common arguemnts, maybe it should instead replace one of the less common ones?Yobmod (talk) 09:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

More on the bacterial flagellum
Some recent information on the bacterial flagellum is discussed at Mark Pallen's blog: The Rough Guide to Evolution. TomS TDotO (talk) 14:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Flagged article due to possible violation of NPOV
Regardless of whether or not you accept the theory of IC, there is something awry in the content of this article. If the article does represent the majority view (IC and ID are not valid), then that can be reflected in the lead and subsequent discussion, but that would mean that the critcism (response) section needs to be reserved for those who dispute that majority opinion. However, the criticism section contains the same opinion as the rest of the article, which creates a de facto one sided discussion. It's akin to having a political debate on a news program and only inviting someone from the left and someone from the far left. It's clear that the writers of this article are trying to have it both ways. IC and ID are criticized in lead, body, and response sections. Arguements against the validity of the subject of an article need to either comprise the main points of the article, or be reserved for the criticism (response) section, not both.

Also, there is no such thing as an opinion "of the scientific community." The scientific community is not a monolithic bloc with a single representative. It is valid to say "the majority of the scientific community believes..." as long as there is a verifiable citation to accompany each stated opinion. Otherwise, for anyone to speak for "the scientific community" is no better than a polititian claiming to speak for "the American people." Strobels (talk) 12:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * On the last point, the sources disagree, read the article "claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large" is sourced.
 * There are no responses of that sort in scientific sources that hold water. the response is simple disagreement as to whether evolution can explain supposedly irreducibly complex structures. There is nothing more to add apart from "proponants disagree" which is pretty obvious from the article content. The article describes the theory, then describes the responses. responses to the responses are not needed for NPOV, when they are simply reiterations of the inital theoryYobmod (talk) 12:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The article you cite is simply a quote from a judge's (who is not a scientist) opinion. The idea that the majority of people who hold degrees in a scientific discipline share the same belief against IC or ID may be true, but this reference does not support that.  Your statement "There are no responses of that sort in scientific sources that hold water" is not a statement of fact, but an opinion.  The "response" section does not differ from a "criticism" section, and again, what should be a positive statement of what a theory is, the lead paragraph of the article, is actually a trojan horse.  The article should be an unbiased statement of the theory, with objections reserved for "response" or "criticism" sections.  In my opinion, this article tries to poison the well from the jump.  Thus, my objection still stands. Strobels (talk) 13:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * So if the responses you claim exist really do, why don't you give us sources to improve the article? At the moment we only see one editor claiming an article is biased, with no evidence given. Also, you have misunderstood the lead - it does not give an introduction to the article, it should summarise the whole article, therefore must contain the criticisms. The concept should be introduced in the first sections, which it is.Yobmod (talk) 14:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as i can tell, the responses of the scientific community give the responses of the scientific community. What responses are missing? Peer reviewd journals where scientists agree with IC? Where? Also the current lead does explain the term, and space is given over to proponents explanations. It is a very simple concept - what more should be said in the lead to balance it? Or you really mean that you want all criticism removed?Yobmod (talk) 14:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My objections may be beyond the scope of this article, and please note that my arguement is an arguement from reason, not a battle of citations. Both the IC and ID articles have changed drastically since I first saw their postings a while back.  Before, the articles used to be a straightforward presentation of the theories, with criticisms included in their own section.  Since the articles are entitled "Intelligent Design" and "Irreducible Complexity" it makes sense that the thrust of the article should be a factual statement with positive evidence for the theory, with a section reserved for detractors.  Most of Wikipedia, from my observation, seems to be arranged this way.  If the thrust of the article was to discredit the theory and not simply present it, then the title should be "Objections to ID" or "The Case Against ID."  I may be mistaken, but it appears that the article(s) have been taken over by louder voices (or those with time enough on their hands to make constant re-writes to keep their version on top).  To put it plainly, it's like putting GOP staffers in charge of maintaining an information page on Obama.  It is unlikely that I will continue to object simply because I don't have enough free time, not because I have conceded the point.

Overall, it may not even possible for ID scientists and methodological naturalist scientists to have a fruitful discussion, since they don't even agree on what science is. To me, there is a huge difference between saying that we don't currently have the ability to observe and/or measure pheomena outside of our universe that may be affecting it (i.e. supernatural, deity, etc.), and saying empirically that nothing exists outside the natural, observable world. The latter is a philosophical presupposition. Some scientists may feel comfortable deciding a priori that there are only natural causes for natural phenomena, but I am unable to make that philosophical leap of faith. I want to follow all of the evidence wherever it leads.Strobels (talk) 15:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

But without citations, how do we know that the POV you say the article is ignoring even exists? That's why we need them. You say it is biased now, but i think it covers all the main viewpoints. Which points is it missing? and where are the sources from which you learned about them? What "positive evidence for the theory"? The article isn't Intelligent design proponents ideas of Irreducible complexity, therefore it gives most attention to the most common viewpoint, which is that IC has yet to be proven to most scientists satisfaction. WP articles on scientific topics have to conform to the majority view of the scientific community - even if that view is wrongYobmod (talk) 15:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I'm just about at a loss for words to make my point any clearer, but here it goes. I didn't say that a viewpoint was missing, but that the placement seemed odd to me.  ID is someone's theory, but the article reads as if it was written primarily by a critic of the theory, not the proponent.  I understand the general merits of a "majority rule" approach to WP, but it runs the risk of becoming a self-licking ice cream cone.  It's as if the article says, "Here is a theory proposed by a minority of scientists that asserts that the majority of scientists have reach a false conclusion, but don't bother looking into it because the majority have concluded that the minority are wrong."  Do you see, even in the smallest way, what I'm talking about? Strobels (talk) 17:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * ah, so you don't find the content to be POV, but the order of presentation? To my eyes, the lead starts with the proponents' definition, and the first section is all about the proponents' definition, the the specific examples start with the proponents' statement about them being IC, followed by refutation. You prefer these to be the other way around? Maybe if the wrote a version of the lead here on talk, i would understand more easily. I have nothing against IC: i don't believe it, but think it is a worthwhile theory for showing the in principle-falsifiability of evolution, and has spurred good research in order to refute the initial examples. That it could in principle be shown to be true doesn't change the fact that no example has so far been given that convinces the experts. Adding responses from the intelligent design side would even be fine, as long as they say something new, and are from notable writers.Yobmod (talk) 09:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:UNDUE. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Joshua. This helped a lot.  I guess what it comes down to is that I am philosophically opposed to the way Wikipedia does business.  Consider this statement from "Undue Weight":  "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article."  That statement is amazing to me!  That means you can have 50 mediocre, self-referencing, circular-reasoning, sources of documentation on one side of an issue, but just one iron-clad source on the other, and the 50 win (please don't respond asking me for documentation for my analogy.  It's just an exaggeration to make a point about the policy).

I feel like a Yuppie who just walked into a biker bar and realized that this isn't the place for me. Excuse me as I tip toe back out slowly. Strobels (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, it's not as bad as it may look. Your interpretation of WP:UNDUE needs more background info, that's all. Those 50 poorly-reasoned documents could be outweighed by one decent source - it would all depend on how they all measured up to the reliable sources guidelines. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 20:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

(Removed soapboxing post per talk page guidelines) S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 17:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (Replaced post removed from SheffieldSteel - discussion is germane to overall topic of this section. Namely, is this article on IC constructed properly.  Comments denote rationale for modifying the article and do not violate the soapboxing policy.)


 * Just a final thought: Following the same train of logic, the Wikipedia articles on Judaism and Mormonism should predominantly contain an opposing view, since the majority believe that their teachings on the nature, character, and will of God are wrong (if the majority believed they were right, then the believers of those groups would be in the majority). But in fact, the majority of print in those articles is favorable to their POV.  True, there are criticisms, but they are relegated to a small, specific section and are not characteristic of the articles as a whole.


 * Now, some may respond to my statement and say, "that's an apples and oranges comparison," since many believe that science deals with the "real" world, but religion (metaphysics) is merely personal preference. But even the mere belief that science is somehow a "more valid" epistemological approach to understanding the world than metaphysics may itself be a minority view worldwide (I don't have a survey on that question).  I would submit that the big questions of life: "who are we," "how did get here," "is there a God," "does God expect me to act one way as opposed to some other way," and "will I be judged and rewarded or punished for what I do" are more significant and dire questions than anything science wrestles with.  But somehow, answers to those questions get a pass in Wikipedia.


 * But, before you say, "yes, but science can verify with facts," remember that most ideas in the total history of science "verified by the facts" have to later be amended or discarded altogether in light of new evidence. Remember, today’s rock solid belief in evolution to the detraction of intelligent design based on "the scientific evidence" is only is less than 200 years old, but the belief in a created world vs an non-created one  by scientists had been around for a lot longer.  Now you could say, "yes, be we are much more advanced than those primitive 'scientists'," but how will scientists 1000 years from now view our current level of technology and understanding?  Let's just say, "go with what you know, but don't be married to it."  The more dogmatic you are, the worse your humble pie will taste if you turn out to be wrong.Strobels (talk) 19:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Judaism and Mormonism are not criticised from a scientific standpoint for reasons which, frankly, ought to be obvious. As for the rest of it, debating with other editors is not a valid use of a Talk page; debating with yourself, even less so.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 19:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The talk page is for discussion about the construction of the article. My comments, like most of the discussion above centers on presenting a logical argument for a change.  Whether you agree or not with my argument, this is what I have done and does not violate WP policy.  Also, I did not argue that Judaism and Mormonism should be criticized from a scientific standpoint; please re-read.  I didn't see this as a "debate," but I suppose it is if a debate is whenever people discuss something they don't agree upon, such as how to compose a WP article.  Strobels (talk) 19:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

IC is a concept which, while based in religion and thus inherently dogmatic, nevertheless presents itself as a scientific topic and a challenger to "Darwinism". It is like a 150-pound man stepping into the boxing ring of scientific debate to challenge Lennox Lewis for the world championship. One predictable round later, you are complaining about your friend getting punched, and suggesting that, to be fair, a Jewish gentleman and a Mormon sitting in the front row should also be punched. Neither your complaint nor your suggestion seems reasonable, under the circumstances. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 20:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with most of your points in such a fundamental way, that to discuss them here would likely violate the policies you referred me to earlier. I recommend we take this up on a personal talk page.  I'll post a response on mine shortly. Strobels (talk) 01:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE - This issue has come to somewhat of a conclusion and I withdraw my NPOV dispute of this page based on the specific issues I raised above. Further details of the discussion are contained on my talk page. Strobels (talk) 05:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Clarification Tag Removed RE: Protein Counts for Bacterial Flagellum
I have clarified the unspecific counts on the differences between the Type III secretory system and the Bacterial Flagellum. I also provided a link to Matzke's excellent paper which details the discovery process, defense and specific functions of the different proteins involved in the Flagellum system. 72.16.237.66 (talk) 18:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I personally would prefer "most proteins" to have been changed to "40 out of XX proteins" rather than just "40 proteins", just so the number is put into perspective, but (my niggles aside) it looks like a good edit, so thanks :-)  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 18:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I could not find a source with a hard number. Miller states 50, Matzke says 20 major and 'another 20-30 proteins with roles in construction and taxi' based on Berg and Macnab 2003. If I find a total I will update it with the correct total (assuming there is a single number). 69.149.49.42 (talk) 19:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Information is given on the second page of
 * Behe contends that all of the more than 40 different proteins that make up the flagellum must be present for the flagellum to function. ...
 * The flagellum, although elucidated long after Darwin, is a useful case to examine. Contrary to the assertions of Behe and Dembski, a survey has shown that only 20 of the 42 proteins of the Salmonella typhimurium flagellum are universally required in bacterial flagella; and of those, 18 have already been found to have homologous related proteins that function in other, simpler biochemical systems. [ref. 23] Pallen MJ, Matzke NJ (2006) Nat Rev Immunol 4:784 –790.
 * Feel free to reword that to suit. . . dave souza, talk 08:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect tone, bias and slant
This article has been written in the style of an argument under the guise of informative writing. The pro-evolution bias is obvious and works to the discredit of the article's subject matter. It should be well noted that articles written here are meant to have the intention of informing, not of persuading. Such questionable statements include numerous like:

"Critics consider that most, or all, of the examples were based on misunderstandings of the workings of the biological systems in question, and consider the low quality of these examples excellent evidence for the argument from ignorance"

Also, there are many clauses which indicate opinionated sway such as:

"It is dismissed by the scientific community..." "Nonetheless, irreducible complexity continues to be cited as an important argument..." "In an often mis-quoted passage..."

Those are merely a small fraction of them, as they are strewn in and about the whole article.

I propose a total overhaul or paraphrasing of the entire article to be written without biased voicing, so that it can be used as an educational read, not an essay by which to preach from.

Knaive (talk) 04:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Your proposal fails to meet the requirements of Neutral point of view policy (which shows and balances viewpoints rather than adopting one idealised viewpoint) and has specific requirements for NPOV: Pseudoscience, avoiding giving it NPOV: Undue weight or NPOV: Giving "equal validity", while NPOV: Making necessary assumptions about the validity of mainstream science. . .  dave souza, talk 08:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * How else can one rephrase "dismissed by the scientific community" without changes it meaning? If it seems NPOV to some, it is because it reflects reality, which has an inbuilt bias towards real science.Yobmod (talk) 09:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't agree more, this article is so bias. But I think people are not stupid these days, this practice will backfire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.104.99 (talk) 13:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I find it amazing that anyone here cares about what the "scientific community" thinks about IC, since it obviously opposes their view. So if they dismiss it obviously it is wrong? Come on! -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 03:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You really don't seem to understand WP:WEIGHT, and the specific provisions of WP:NPOV/FAQ which require pseudoscience to be shown in the context of its reception by the scientific community, without giving "equal validity" to pseudoscience. IC is presented as "science", and so has to be assessed by the standards of science. While its proponents may deny this, it is clearly a religious concept and as such is also a matter for expert theological opinion. WP:NPOV does not mean credulous repetition of minority claims. You are, of course, welcome to discuss specific points, but your blanket assertion simply shows a misunderstanding of NPOV policy.. dave souza, talk 13:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I took a look at John H. McDonald's page (Ref 32) on explaining the reducibility of a mouse trap. It is completely unconvincing in proving any reducibility. Adding a coil to the wire, adding cheese requires knowledge of the effects of the coil and the purpose of the cheese. This does not happen by chance. This is one example of where the one trying to disprove the analogy of the mouse does not understand that it is not the parts of the trap, but the complex function of each component that matters. Just like the functions of the parts of an eye are complex in themselves and one would have to understand their function and purpose in order to select them as parts of the complex machine (eye). They just by random selection came together to form an eye that sees? Each complex component must not only function in its own right, but must integrate with the other components to function as a whole. So can we explain how simple components became complex components, or simple components joined others to form simple machines, or complex components joined others to form complex machine for a particular purpose and actually works, by some form of random chance? -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 14:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I see your misunderstanding here: Natural selection is not random at all. See the evolution of the eye for how gradual build-up and modification is selected for. You keep what works, and when you add something (mutation) that makes it work better, that is selected (kept) as well. Aunt Entropy (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Precisely, which takes an educated decision. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 00:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No it does not 'take an educated decision' -- all it takes is differential survival rates -- the core concept underlying natural selection. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I see, and this guarantees the existence of a necessary function that works? -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 17:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Short answer: yes. For a slightly longer answer, read the article on natural selection. For a still longer answer, read a book on natural selection. But in any case, this thread has wandered well off its original topic, and outside this talkpage's intended topic of discussing improvements to this article. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Link to Arch
I agree with Hrafn who removed several links to other articles. No complaints from me. But the link to arch got me to thinking. Under the heading Arch it begins "An arch requires all of its elements to hold it together, raising the question of how an arch is constructed." Isn't that a concise statement of "irreducible complexity"? I don't know whether it would be appropriate to refer to that. TomS TDotO (talk) 12:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Not without a WP:RS it wouldn't. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Useful clarification, and there are already two mentions of the analogy in the article so I've tweaked the sentences to add the relevant links.  As the second example mentions, a natural arch shows how such arches form with no intervention by a "designer". Amusingly, there are often vestigial structures in the form of capitals to the columns supporting the arch, where the projecting capital formed a support to the temporary centering, a device commonly used in aquaducts. The first example cites a magazine requiring purchase to read. . . dave souza, talk 14:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

NPOV Issues
Seems most of the body is about disproving the premise of the article, and does not provide balanced information. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 14:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you tell us what information is it missing?<b style="color:#0000CD;">Yob</b><b style="color:#008000;">Mod</b> 14:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The problems do not lie in what is missing, but what is present. The opening sentence is a good example: "This article covers irreducible complexity as used by those who argue for intelligent design." The disambiguation offers only a link to Systems Theory. The error is repeated in the opening sentence of the lead: "Irreducible complexity (IC) is an argument made by proponents of intelligent design...." That is tantamount to asserting, "Natural Selection is an argument made by proponents of atheism...." This error is carried into the discussion above as "IC is a major component of ID...." (as though there is a single unified theory of intelligent design) - although I'm sure there would be an uproar if somebody suggested the equivalent "Darwinism is a component of atheism." IC is a refutation of gradualist evolutionary theories, and nothing more. Gordon Rattray Taylor, in "The Great Evolution Mystery" posed the very same objections a quarter of a century ago, and I rather doubt he was the first. The NPOV problem in this article is so pervasive I don't see how it can be salvaged.Flagmichael (talk) 12:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The statement "Natural selection is an argument made by proponents of atheism..." could easily be refuted by citing John Haught, Ian Barbour, John Polkinghorne, Arthur Peacocke, Kenneth Miller, and large numbers of other theologians and scientists who find natural selection and religion fully compatible. The statement "IC is an argument made by proponents of intelligent design..." appears to be factual.  Do you have an example of any current scientist, theologian, or other interested expert who advocates IC without ID?Agathman (talk) 13:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As previously cited, Gordon Rattray Taylor, who to my knowledge has never given any indication of attempting to invoke ID (in fact, he is openly scornful of creationist arguments), lists a number of instances he refers to as "coordinated development" in which gradual and progressive modifications do not make sense (op cit Pp 94-114). He concludes, "Many of these modifications possess an all-or-nothing character which makes it very difficult to understand how natural selection could have produced them." However, authority has no standing in the logical argument (nor in science, for that matter). My point is that identifying IC as a component of ID is logically identical to identifying natural selection as a component of atheism. Both are wrong for precisely the same reason; the subject in each case is not dependent on the purposes of the adherents. That the Nazis invoked Darwinian theory to justify their genocide does not make Darwinian theory a component of Nazism. To say so, whether or not it can be justified by sophistry, is patently misleading - and that is not the purpose of an encyclopedia article. Flagmichael (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This article deals with a term proposed by Michael Behe, a little over a decade ago. The term he created is very much a part of the ID movement. The argument made by Taylor may be similar, but the usage and its connotations are not
 * Just as the ID article deals with the current ID movement, and only mentions older notions of a designed world tangentially, this article deals with a concept proposed by an intelligent design advocate, and should not focus on older notions that share some characteristics. -- Ec5618 (talk) 07:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If the article is about the phrase rather than the topic, you have a point... but the article would still need a re-write to accomplish that. IC (the subject) is exactly the same as Taylor's "coordinated development" and other objections to gradualism in evolution. In every case the objection relates to the inability to identify, even in workable theory, how gradual changes could account for a known feature. What any particular author chooses to call his examples or where he chooses to go with the observations are immaterial; the usage is precisely identical. Connotations, being completely subjective, are outside the scope of an encyclopedic article. It might also be helpful to rename the article to something like "Objections to gradualism" and redirect from IC to reduce the bias that suffuses this article. Flagmichael (talk) 00:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So, Flagmichael thinks they're the same. Blatant WP:OR. For anything to appear in WP the same argument has to be verified by a reliable published source. Per WP:TALK, please provide the required source. . dave souza, talk 08:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps someone would be interested in adding a citation to Gordon Rattray Taylor in the list of "Forerunners". (By the way, I realize that this is off-topic, but I cannot let pass unchallenged the assertion that the Nazis invoked Darwinian theory.) TomS TDotO (talk) 11:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree about the hazard of slipping off-topic, but the comparison is important. For example, Dr. Arthur Gutt, the SS officer who was director of the Office for Population Politics and Hereditary Health Teachings, was quoted in the New York times, "... all civilized races stand in imminent danger of degeneration because civilization has turned natural selection, which eliminated the sick and unfit automatically, into 'counterselection'...." (Harry Bruinius, "Better for all the World" p 275). The international Eugenics movement (founded by the man who coined the term "eugenics" - Darwin's cousin and friend, Francis Galton) depended completely on Darwinian theory, because if positive traits could not be inherited as Darwin suggested then eugenics was a fraud.
 * More to the point, the parallel with IC relative to ID is very close indeed. Nazism could have existed without eugenics, but the party of Adolph Hitler chose to incorporate it. ID can exist without IC, but some proponents have chosen to incorporate it. It is technically correct enough to say "IC is a component of ID" or "Darwinian theory is a component of Nazism" in the sense "lasers are a component of communication devices." The statements are misleading in that they give the impression the elements are no more than a subordinate part of the application and that all applications of the sort mentioned require the elements, leaving only context to make clear that is not so. It is in that way the article goes wrong, and why I identify the problem as NPOV. Flagmichael (talk) 23:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Your linkage of Nazi policy to Darwin is defective. (i) Galton was an advocate of "positive eugenics", not the "negative eugenics" the Nazis advocated (which can be traced to the fad for eugenics in the US, during the 'eclipse of Darwinism'). (ii) Darwin himself clearly disavowed the morality of applying selection to the human race. (iii) The Nazi use of evolutionary language was merely a superficial veneer, for the purposes of propaganda, over racist preferences that had nothing whatsoever to do with objective "fitness" (i.e. blonde hair, blue eyes, narrow noses, etc). <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Epic fail of Godwin's law, Flagmichael. So some Nazis referred to natural selection: their ideas had much more to do with de Gobineau's concepts. Galton was interested in heredity, which long predates Darwin's theory. The Spartans practiced negative eugenics a while before publication of OtOOS. The eugenics movement occurred during the eclipse of Darwinism and had more to do with non-Darwinian concepts of evolution and heredity. Of course ID can "exist" without IC, as it began as creation science relabelled without that new catchphrase, but IC was its shining new claim to scientific credence and has been central to presentation of ID since IC was published. Not, of course, that it's a terribly new concept. Your last sentences are rather incoherent, but you seem to be arguing against something that isn't in this article. Be specific. . dave souza, talk 08:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The very tenuousness of the link between Nazism and Darwin was my argument. It is a parallel for the relationship claimed for IC and ID. An article on Darwin or natural selection should not identify either as "a component of nazism", and an article on IC should not identify it as "a component of ID." If I have not been able to demonstrate the NPOV problem to this point I don't have any hope of doing so. My renew my strenuous objection to the NPOV tone and context of the article, but I see the doctrine has too much support to be corrected - I don't see a future in it. Good day, all. Flagmichael (talk) 12:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've just looked at Gordon Rattray Taylor's book, The Great Evolution Mystery. Just skimming through chapter 5, pages 94-114, and about the only reference to something like IC seems to be this: "The eye is not by any means the only example of an organ created by a great many changes taking place in perfect harmony, though it is perhaps the most striking." (page 94) I'll spend a little more time on this book, but at present that seems to be insufficient basis for giving Taylor credit for the concept of IC. Can anyone give me some help - or maybe convince me to mention Taylor? TomS TDotO (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Taylor's book has some mentions of "coordinated innovations", "... changes", "... development", but does not clearly (to me, at least) spell out what he means by "coordinated". However, he did make reference to a book by T.H. Frazzetta, "Complex Adaptations in Evolving Populations". This book is precisely a discussion of the apparent difficulty of evolving interdependent functions in a gradual way. For example, the first chapter compares and contrasts the construction of machines with the evolution of living things. Therefore, I'm adding a bit about Frazzetta to the "Forerunners". I don't know why I haven't run across a discussion of Frazzetta before. TomS TDotO (talk) 10:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "The very tenuousness of the link between Nazism and Darwin was my argument." Last I checked, Darwin was not a senior member of the Nazi Party. By contrast Michael Behe, the originator of Irreducible complexity under its current title, is a Fellow at the Discovery Institute. Both Behe & the DI promote IC as supporting ID. That others, prior to the invention of ID, promoted similar arguments without promoting ID, would appear to be irrelevant. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

1st Paragraph
Currently includes the sentence: "It is one of two main arguments intended to support intelligent design..." This may be too fine a point, but IC is NOT an argument for ID, but only an argument against natural selection. As far as I know there are NO scientific arguments for ID.Desoto10 (talk) 01:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The sentence is correct, since it says "intended to", and the intent is indeed to support intelligent design. That it fails to do so does not affect the intent. -- Coffee2theorems (talk) 14:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * A slightly clearer phrasing might be "It is one of two main arguments that attempt to indirectly support intelligent design, by arguing against natural selection, the other being specified complexity." <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Does argue against natural selection, or does it point out a limitation of natural selection? -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 16:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It argues against the ability of natural selection to produce all the organs/etc we see today. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that its intended target is not natural selection, but gradual, bit-by-bit evolution. The idea being that several changes have to occur simultaneously, because if even one of the changes does not occur then the result would not be viable: the changes are mutually dependent. TomS TDotO (talk) 17:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hrafn's rewrite is IMO better than the original sentence, as his version makes explicit what is only implicit in the original and this is a complicated subject (i.e. no hiding the ball or the average reader is going to be confused). IC is of course (as a matter of logic) only an argument against NS; it can be an argument for ID only if the only two possible theoretical candidates are NS and ID, and that is what the Court referred to in Kitzmiller (p. 64, Opinion) as a "flawed and illogical contrived dualism" (and a very common false dualism it is).


 * The intended target of IC and ID is indeed NS. ID advocates clearly are not satisfied with a naturalistic theory that says "Oh yes, and by the way, every once and a while there are these incredible jumps (known as "hopeful monsters") that aren't bit-by-bit, and those jumps occur by natural means (i.e. "random" variation, selection & replication) also, just like the little bitty changes. They're all the same, theoretically." ID claims (in its strongest sense) that a valid example of IC refutes NS as it is commonly explained. That is not an unreasonable position; Darwin himself actually agreed with this. But it's a hard question to answer without thinking about it within the context of an actual valid example of IC, of which we have none.


 * While I think there may be something to the distinction between "against" and "pointing out a limitation," I also think it is just too subtle for the intro. Maybe in the middle of the article is a decent place to articulate this. SixPurpleFish (talk) 18:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I think Hrafn needs to take a vacation from this article. It appears that this has become very personal for you. With all due respect, that is not what an article on a contraversial issues needs. This article is not about proving or disproving IC but providing the best information available to the reader on the subject matter. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 01:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The Founders Intent: I do not see any way that either of my two comments on this thread could reasonably be interpreted as taking this 'personally'. I would therefore suggest you keep your thoughts on my participation to yourself. As to "proving or disproving IC", the "levels of acceptance" by the scientific community of WP:FRINGE topics should be covered in their articles. In any case, I can see no relevance of that point to this thread -- which is about IC's objective not its 'proof or disproof'. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say your statements from Opening Paragraph on show your determination to say IC is pseudoscience or rejected by science. You continue this for many paragraphs, as others argue for strict adherence to putting only content related to IC in the article.  You want to make sure that everyone knows that IC is crap from the get-go.  Why do you have such an agenda?  That's not what Wikipedia is about.  -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 00:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * SixPurpleFish: I recognize that I'm in the impossible situation of trying to make coherent commentary on an intrinsically incoherent concept, so I won't try to push my own reading of IC. But I can't resist pointing out that IC is surely as adamantly opposed to real alternatives to NS such as sexual selection and genetic drift.TomS TDotO (talk) 12:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Tom, thanks for your (very civilized) comment. I certainly agree that these concepts are often incoherent. I'm not sure that the conceptual disease is terminal (but maybe so).
 * First, I think that a more rigorous definition of "IC" (compared i.e. to Behe's or even Miller's) would help. I am not sure that such exists formally in the literature and of course, I wouldn't want to engage in the dreaded "independent research" in Wikipedia, but presumably this pursuit is OK on Talk Pages if it advances the article.
 * Second, "IC" isn't "opposed" to anything because "IC" is not a theory, nor does it (like its cousin ID) claim to be. IC is simply a concept, that exists (qua concept) independently of any evolutionary debate, of course, and independently of any theory of evolution. IC (as a purely logical concept) says this:
 * 1. Conceive of a "system" S (I leave aside the definition of this slippery term here so let's just use an intuitive approach) that performs a certain defined function (call that function F). NB: Not clear whether IC (as articulated by ID) requires that F be unique, i.e. that S performs only F and no other function; i.e. must we also consider exaptation?
 * 2. Now conceive of the various "components" (C1, C2...Cn) (let's ignore for now whether these must be"elemental" components or whether another system S2 might itself count as a "component" of S, i.e whether you can have a non-elemental "component" that itself is made up of other components) that make up S and whose interaction and cooperation define S and enable it to perform F.
 * 3. Def1: The system S is said to be inherently complex (i.e. it has the property or attribute of being "inherently complex") just in case the removal of any component Cx "disables" the system, i.e. prevents it from performing F. NB: I take this to be Behe's IC definition, even though it may be clear that the particular Cx was not, in the context of constructing S, added last.
 * NB: This is Behe's definition as best I can parse it. Since it's just conceptual word play at this stage, other definitions can be formulated. E.g., a "stronger" (if that's the word) and recursive definition Def2 can be created by adding condition 2A, to stipulate that if (a) any component C1, C2..Cn is itself a subsystem (S2) with different function F2, and (b) S2 is "IC", then S is necessarily "IC" (with IC construed here either recursively or in the more fundamental sense of Def1, the "base" definition).
 * Third, the "concept" defined above is neutral on the question of whether IC systems actually exist or not (i.e. in the empirical world as opposed to just in your fertile imagination), just as your idea of the "perfect island" is neutral on the question of whether such an island actually exists on Planet Earth (note: it's probably Bermuda though). In particular, the concept is neutral on the question of whether such IC systems exist in organisms or of whether some organism itself, conceived as a system, is IC.
 * Fourth, ID (as best I understand Behe anyway as an ID proponent) makes the following claim:
 * 1. IC can be adequately defined and understood as a conceptual matter. (Purely a conceptual and definitional matter)
 * 2. IC systems exist in organisms.(Claim of empirical fact)
 * 3. Darwin's theory (as currently understood in the neo-Darwinian sense and whether characterized as "natural selection" or "evolution" or "descent by (gradual or as you say bit-by-bit) modification" {his own favorite term}) cannot account for fact 2 above. (Proposed theorem). The ID/IC proof of the theorem is:
 * 1. Use Def1 (it's simpler and your mind will explode if you use Def2 straight away, and it really doesn't matter in the end) (Heuristic)
 * 2. Each component C1, C2...Cn of the IC system S is elemental, i.e. no such component is itself another system (From Def1)
 * 3. Each such component must have a "survival value" because otherwise it would fail to be selected (Alleged to be an inevitable consequence of Darwinism)
 * 4. Each such survival value must be other than the performance of F (Definition of IC)
 * 5. For a complex S, with many components (n is "large"), the combination of 3 and 4 is very unlikely (Mathematical intuition)
 * 6. Evolution by gradual modification (Darwinism) is hence very unlikely (Logical inference from the foregoing)
 * 7. Since the only possible explanations are Darwinism and ID, it follows that the explanation must be ID (Assumption of exactly two explanatory models). {Of course, an advocate can omit 7 if the only intent is to refute Darwinism rather than to, more forcibly, establish ID).
 * While it's true that ID proponents would challenge any naturalistic alternatives to Darwinism, as you suggest, the fact is that it just isn't a fighting issue now, mainly because the Darwinian view (with or without "enhancements" like facilitated variation) is the scientific consensus. The ID argument based on IC (as constructed above) in any case only purports to work against Darwinism, however construed, not against just any arbitrary naturalistic explanation.


 * Tom, maybe that is responsive to your point. I'll be happy to discuss on your Talk Page if you want to move this elsewhere. SixPurpleFish (talk) 18:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The "Arch" Analogy
Isn't the argument that irreducible complexity doesn't work because an arch can collapse with the removal of one brick foolish because you could take bricks off the top without hurting anything? -Dah Cheese
 * This is intended to be a report on what the arguments are, rather than an evaluation on how good they are. But I think that we can overdo that, if an argument has no plausibility at all. In the case of the arch analogy, there are some reasons to think that it might be at least worth mentioning. For one thing, it does seem to have some plausibility, for we can reduce the arch to an irreducible minimum, by removing bricks one-by-one until we have an arch where no more bricks can be removed without collapse. And, on the biology side, I'm sure that - for example - some molecules can be removed from a flagellum, just that the claim is that there is some irreducible minimum. So, I think, the parallel between the arch and the biological examples holds, at least at first glance, unless there is something in the literature which can be cited in this article. TomS TDotO (talk) 12:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a discussion in archive 3 on this matter:

Doesn't the example of an arch actually helps the case that irreducible complexity leads to a designer because people and likely engineers (intelligent designers) have to make the scaffolding, put it up, and build the arch?--Jorfer 02:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

There is the example of "natural arches", such as in Arches National Park. TomS TDotO 12:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The man-made example is still a bad one and should be taken out not just for that reason but because it indicates a support structure (see User talk:Jorfer/Archive 2).--Jorfer 17:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It could be argued that natural arches were created by God and creating a flagella is way more difficult then wearing away a piece of rock so the natural example is bad too.--Jorfer 17:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

--Jorfer (talk) 05:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

"Evolutionary biologists have shown that such systems can in fact evolve, and Behe's examples are considered to constitute an argument from ignorance"
I ask whether it would be appropriate to distinguish three points:

1. Such systems can evolve 2. Such systems have evolved 3. The argument from ignorance

Under (1), one can point to analogies such as the natural arch, which shows that a step-by-step process can lead to a situation in which all the pieces are necessary to the result. Under (2), one can point to fossil intermediates which show that the mammalian middle-ear ossicles did, in fact, have intermediate forms. Under (3), one can show that there are possibilities other than standard biological evolution and intelligent design - oh, say, Lamarckian evolution or elan vital.

I think that this would be, if anything, less argumentative than saying "scientists have shown". TomS TDotO (talk) 15:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The statement is utterly, completely uncontroversial and is supported by the reference I took from inside the article. --TS 15:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

PNAS paper on "reducible complexity"


Would be a good reference for this article. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Mousetrap
Suggest for the end of the lede some version of this phrase, modify as you please: "Scientists often find fault with the examples given by proponents of irreducible complexity, particularly the famous example of the mousetrap;..." There are sources for it, but I have not got time to find them all. Thank you. Anarchangel (talk) 07:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Somewhat biased?
To me, it seems that this article is somewhat biased. I have done vast research on this topic, and Behe has acceptably countered every criticism that I have heard of. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?70.181.168.148 (talk) 03:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I doubt it, but provide WP:RS making the case.--Filll (talk) 03:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Personal opinion and original research count for nothing in wikipedia. It is what you can verify from reliable sources that counts.
 * 2) What we have seen to date is that Behe wanders repeatedly into areas outside his expertise, and has been shown by genuine experts in these fields to have, at best, a very superficial understanding of them, insufficient to support the far-fetched claims he makes in these fields, which claims have, without exception, been debunked. The unequivocal scientific consensus, including from Behe's own department, is that irreducible complexity is without any scientific merit. Per, WP:DUE, this article will continue to give this considerable weight, as the majority viewpoint.
 * <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 03:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, well if it's so "debunked," then why is that the first link in Wiki Project Intelligent Design? If truly no one believes it anymore, I don't see why that should be used as one of the main Intelligent Design arguments on Wikipedia. 70.181.168.148 (talk) 17:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Because both major ID arguments have been debunked -- Irreducible complexity & Specified complexity. ID is pseudoscience based upon such debunked arguments. There are of course people who believe in it -- just like there are people who believe in astrology, homeopathy and any number of other pseudoscientific ideas. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 17:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand the confusion. However, Wikipedia is not about truth, but verifiability. And these ideas, although possibly debunked, are notable. And for the benefit of our readers, we include them all and the relevant information about them. Many debunked ideas like caloric theory have articles on Wikipedia. Some are interesting. Some are of historic interest. Some are necessary to satisfy the requirements of Wikipedia, described in WP:NPOV.--Filll (talk) 18:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thank you Filll. That clarifies a lot, however I am still confused as to why two supposedly "debunked" topics are the first two links on the Wiki Project ID page. Surely, we could move them down to the bottom and give the more important topics of the fined-tuned universe and whatnot some light? I'm sorry, and I do not mean to have "general discussion on the article's topic," but it seems to me that the article and even the Wiki Project is still biased against ID. I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be neutral? Thanks, and sorry for my confusion. from 70.181.168.148 (for some reason my IP switched, now I'm a different IP, but im still the person known as 70.181.168.148.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.160.116 (talk) 02:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * To be honest, the order is somewhat arbitrary on that page. But Hrafn is the gentleman who manages the page mainly, so maybe he will discuss it with you. But honestly it is sort of irrelevant. That project page is just to organize ourselves internally, and really confers no other importance or information based on ordering etc.--Filll (talk) 02:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Third party here. You are throwing out the evidence used by the ID group but letting the anti-ID group write completely bias articles. How is this neutral? Just curious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.94.206.196 (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid you do not understand WP. The personal stance of those writing the articles does not matter. The article must be written according to NPOV. And by NPOV, the mainstream view must be dominant. And ID is purported to be science, and the mainstream view of ID is that it is nonsense at best.--Filll (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No, you don't seem to understand. NPOV doesn't mean "majority" rules, it means that you write it from a non-bias perspective. Would it be NPOV in the south during the 1800's to write that African Americans are an inferrior race? According to your definition the answer would be yes. Perhaps I don't understand WP, perhaps WP is far too focused on being a majority rules series of articles then a fact-based dictionary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.94.206.196 (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If the majority of reliable, independently published sources sources said that in 1800, then yes that is exactly what Wikipedia would have reported. If there was dissent, Wikipedia, being like all encyclopedias a tertiary source, would report on the dissent in appropriate proportion.  In 100 years, there will undoubtedly be things that future readers will look at in wonder.  Nevertheless, this is what we know as best we know it today.  Rossami (talk) 20:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I suspect that in 1800, the vast majority of mainstream reliable sources would state that African Americans were an inferior race. And therefore, according to NPOV, in 1800 Wikipedia would report exactly that. Now there was a minority movement that disagree with that position, and that would be noted, but only in the proportion of their prominence. So suppose that 80% of the reliable sources said blacks are an inferior race in 1800, and 20% said that blacks were not an inferior race. About 80% of the Wikipedia content would then state what 80% of the reliable sources said, that blacks are an inferior race.

See, Wikipedia is not about truth, but verifiability. It is not a "fact-based encyclopedia" but a "source-based encyclopedia". If the sources do not have facts in them, then that is what we will report anyway. It is not up to Wikipedia to second guess these sources and state something different. There are other Wikis for that, but Wikipedia is not one of them.--Filll (talk) 23:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oddly enough, around the 1860s the creationist Louis Agassiz argued that African Americans were an inferior species and thus supported slavery, while Charles Darwin argued that humanity was all one species, and vigourously opposed slavery. Sometimes reality is biased, no matter how much ID proponents try to hide from it. .. dave souza, talk 23:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. If you look in mainstream encyclopediae in 1800, most of them did not have great things to say about African Americans I dare say. And the same religious sects now that are most heavily creationist today, like Pentecostals and Baptists, were the most heavily racist and in favor of slavery in the 1800s. They argued based on the biblical story of Ham that blacks are inferior and should be slaves. The sects like Unitarians and Quakers that opposed slavery are those that accept evolution today. So...--Filll (talk) 23:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Even the discussion on this article is trying to smear creationists as racist?! This article is ridiculously biased and gives far too much author opinion. Yet another partizan ruining Wikipedia as an academic source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.213.130 (talk) 19:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yet another unsigned comment from someone evidently with an apparently strong opinion... Maybe that is what partly "ruins Wikipedia"! Just how difficult is logging in and finding the tilda key on a computer keyboard?!Jimjamjak (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The very suggestion that this theory has been "debunked" because an opposing argument has been offered displays inherent bias. That the theory is considered a "minor theory" is nothing more than a reflection of an entire field of scientists on both sides of the issue that mistake worldview for logic and metaphysics for astrophysics. WP's perspective on the "unbiased" issue is a deceptive misnomer. Restating the party line is not truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Savingedmund (talk • contribs) 16:03, 24 September 2009
 * Thank you for repeating that party line, think we've heard it before: see the responses above, and WP:TALK for the purpose of this page which is NOT debating the topic. Do please sign your posts in future. . dave souza, talk 16:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I am very new to contributing to Wikipedia. I therefore do not know if my comment here is according to the standards--excuse me. I felt a need to comment on the somewhat embarrassing tone of this article. I was under the impression that the standard would be much less doctrinaire and emotional. I think this article does little to advance the credibility of Wikipedia. There seems to be little desire to provide a complete analysis--pro and con--of the subject. That's a shame. hsteach —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsteach (talk • contribs) 01:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC) == Silly shellfish ==

Could people please stop edit-warring over octopuses/octopi -- according to Merriam-Webster both are correct. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yesh, you're being very shellfish. Thish ish a team effort. -- Ec5618 (talk) 06:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Any more excruciating mollusc puns from you & we'll all clam up. :P <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I want to remind everyone Wikipedia isn't a talk forum. Thanks.Mr2b (talk) 20:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Major proponent, originator, popularizer
I was about to edit the description of Behe as "originator" of the concept to say "popularizer", but I thought I'd mention it here first. After all, it wasn't even unknown among creationists of the late 20th century. Behe's contribution seems to be restricted to drawing attention to the (old) concept and giving it the name "irreducible complexity". If no one comes up with a better description than "popularizer" (or, at least, an argument against it), I'll make the change. TomS TDotO (talk) 11:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The 'first proponent of it under this name' might be a better description then. He did more than simply 'popularise' the argument -- even if the ideas wasn't completely original, he crystallised it into a recognisable concept. I would note that the previous arguments on the topic are characterised as 'Forerunners' not 'Early examples of irreducible complexity arguments'. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Some other problems of irreducible complexity
There are some other arguments I've heard which I wish someone could unearth (I can't remember exactly where I saw them). One characterizes irreducible complexity as a problem that God should be able to overcome, in that if God is all powerful then He should be able to create a world in which the outcome is directly identical to ours but without having to tinker with it to have it turn out that way. If not, then its not all-powerful. If so, then it must be able to design a world where irreducible complexity doesn't stop molecules from forming complex life unaided, and so irreducible complexity must be possible to overcome. Another is the point that there is no irreducible complexity in the differentiation of ape and man, so once higher levels of evolution are admitted the biggest objection to evolution (man descending from apes) is basically conceded. Torquemama007 (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The first argument sounds a lot like Omnipotence paradox, which is philosophy and not my area of expertise. Regardless, IC purposely makes no claims about the supernatural so the nature of God really has no place in this article.  The second argument actually is meaningless since humans are apes and always have been.  Since apparently Behe is the only scientist who is able to spot IC, there may or may not be examples in primate speciation.  Still, IC is not meant to disprove any of the mechanisms proposed by real biologists, only that their may be others as well.  Evolution of primates can still occur even if systems are IC.  I hope that helps.  StephenPCook (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A paradox indeed -- in the first case it seems that IC then disproves our existence since it poses a problem even God can't overcome. So, evolution alone can't make us exist and there is no omnipotent God to do it either. Torquemama007 (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I don't think IC has much to do with the question of omnipotence. However, unfortunately this is not the venue to discuss it, see WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:TALK. Are there any specific (and sourced) changes to the article we could discuss instead? Gabbe (talk) 08:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Couldn't find anything outside of blogs and forums. Sorry. Torquemama007 (talk) 04:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Broken Links
Links 44, 64, and 65 are broken and do not lead to what they are supposed to. 173.2.116.173 (talk) 14:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to sign in - this is me. Higgyrun3 (talk) 14:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I've found updated links for these source articles – journal access or subscription may be needed. . . dave souza, talk 17:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)