Talk:Irreducible complexity/Archive 1

message: ----
Sorry if I'm putting this in the wrong place, I'm rather new to contributing to wikipedia.  I just wanted to point out that as a somewhat unbiased reader (I do have an opinion but I try to push it aside), this sentence: "However, this objection accounts for relatively few of the virtually unlimited potential intermediate stages of evolving features." in the Handicaps and Sexual Selection section seemed rather out of place to me.  It doesn't seem to fit into the flow of the previous 2 paragraphs, and I honestly couldn't even tell what it was trying to say.
----
:almost a standard bearer for Creationists in their attempt to disprove natural selection as a mechanism for evolution.
#It's not about Creationists vs. evolutionists, but intelligent design vs. evolutionists. "Can't tell the players without a scorecard."
#No one is trying to disprove natural selection -- where did you get that? 
--User:Ed Poor
----Perhaps a poor choice of wording, but the whole phrase includes "as a mechanism for evolution".  Creationists are a subset of intelligent design and most creationists I talk to use this particular species as an example of irreducible complexity.  If others believe that I have introduced a fallacy or non-NPOV into the article, I shall remove that phrase.  However, do a search on "Bombardier Beetle" on the web before making the juedgement.  --rgamble
:Creationism and intelligent design (ID) are allies against evolutionism. ID insists that it's not creationism, and there are some legal aspects to this distinction at . What I'm trying to contribute to evolution debate is information that points out the weaknesses in the pro-evolution argument. I am not a Creationist. I consider Creationists too anti-scientific for my taste. --User:Ed Poor
Ed, I will remove the reference to Creationists.  However, I believe the rest of the statement stands on its own.  The phrase does not imply that ID or Creationists are attempting to disprove Natural Selection, but rather Natural Selection as a _mechanism_ for Evolution.  ie, since irreducible complexity and Natural Selection seem to have irreconcilable differences, Evolution can not always occur through Natural Selection.  This seems to me, to be the basis of the argument.  More simply put, the argument seems to be, Evolution relies on Natural Selection.  To work, Evolution has to get around the problem of irreducible complexity.  Natural Selection, while a true part of nature, does not get around the problem of irreducible complexity. Therefore, evolution can not occur.  If that sounds correct to you, then the phrase as I put it, sums up the problem rather than introducing a fallacy. --rgamble
:What you wrote in the above paragraph should go into the article, which would put irreducible complexity into the context of the evolution debate. Keep up the good work. User:Ed Poor
Minor note: Many books on irreducible complexity pull the this beatle up, since the original book on irreducible complexity used it as its prime example, but the bombardier beatle does not explode as stated, and never has. In fact, the new edition of his work includes a disclaimer. As talkorigins, cited elsewhere, says quite eloquently, this particular creature is not an example of irreducible complexity, and its accompanying entry needs to be edited to suit.
This is not to say irreducible complexity is or is not so, merely that the bombardier beatle cannot be used in an argument for it. (/minor note)
----Hmmm, given I myself am an evolutionist... ;)  Then again, to show alternatives to an argument, the argument must be understood so I'll attempt to work it into the article on my next break. Thanks for the exchange. --Rgamble 
----
I would change the bullet item "Assume: Evolution's sole mechanism is natural selection (this is an assumption by some, but not all evolutionists)" to "Assume: Evolution's sole mechanism for adaptation is natural selection." The only real area where Behe is (almost, kinda but not really) making a claim is regarding features which have an apparent function. (Of course, he is ignoring, among other things, the fact that structures can be change function over time, IMO -- witness the evolution of the mammalian inner ear.)--Craig Pennington
----
Just to chime in on this. This is quite interesting, speaking (typing) as someone not having read any details on the idea behind intelligent design. Its not an entirely invalid question, obviouly to ask about how a small mutation, which in itself serves no function yet, though somehow provides for a greater likelihood of survival.
It begs the question of mutations - do they develop as in the quantum evolution idea, as i understand it, not just in small twists, but in huge leaps: Perhaps somehow, borrowing genetic code from elsewhere. wow. Extremely interesting speculation. --Sv
----
i was just talking to the "evolutionists" and i got some good links from "them". one was http://talkorigins.org/design/faqs/nfl/#irred, which makes a call for disambiguation. (another link pointed out that the classic description of how the bombadier beetle works is quite inaccurate and it would suck to perpetuate that here -- for example, its questionable that the beetle would blow up the link was: http://www.talkorigins.org . Specifically, here is a link devoted to explaining precisely the argument that is oft-repeated by creationists: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html ) anyway, disambiguation also needs to differentiate between the inaccurate use of the term when simply referring to great complexity and also the difference between the the scale of organs and chemistry. at least, that's what i think. :)
----
:those who argue for intelligent design in their attempt to disprove natural selection as a potential mechanism for evolution.
What does the above phrase mean? Is there anyone who says that natural selection causes evolution? I thought evolutionists believed (a) that random mutations caused evolution, and (b) that natural selection culls out the unsuccessful products of this process leaving only the competitively successful new species. 
Maybe I don't understand evolution well enough to write about it, much less to write about its critics... --Uncle Ed 17:40, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not POV to point out that mainstream scientists reject Christian (and yes, even Jewish) creationism, even in the guise of so-called "Intelligent design". RK 21:40, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

text: It needs to be significantly pared down.  Jim62sch 18:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: One facet of ID perhaps poorly represented on this page is the biogenesis hurdle. In order for evolution to occur, self-replicating complex molecules must first come into existence. If we were to say that some hidden part of the universe has human-like thought-like abilities, we would have one possible method for the origin of these mechanisms.
The main thesis of reductionistic biology is that all organisms are, in actuality, mechanisms of some sort that we could potentially understand. Where do currently human-understood mechanisms typically come from? I would say they are generally reproduced from mental representations, with the aid of mentally understood simple tools. In a way, our mechania are living beings and we are simply one element in their reproduction. If we died off, they would no longer be able to reproduce.
Since we humans are the defining example of intelligence, and machines require us for their reproduction, it seems to stand to reason that machines (organisms) that don't require us, require something similar. Thus we figure that our "sentience" has an analog in the finer details of the universe, somehow.
By the way, there is no definite difference between design and evolution. To create something, you need to start with a reproducible idea and refine it by making small, reversible changes and testing them for effectiveness. That is by definition an evolutionary process.
If a particular theory does not support Evangelical Christian beliefs, it will be abandoned for a more fitting theory. Why? Because Evangelical Christian beliefs themselves evolve. The more effective the way of explaining them, the more likely that it will survive and reproduce itself within the Christian community. Christianity is purposefully vague on certain points, because the need for adaptability in the light of future discovery has already been forseen. Disproving a religious belief is not possible. The religious person is not so much making a statement as asking a question. If you answer incorrectly, someone is bound to point it out - even though their proposed solution may be worse.
My prediction is that, as evolutionary theory becomes better defined and proven, creationistic and evolutionistic theories will merge. The worse interpretations will simply go extinct. I base this prediction on evolutionary theories. The reason for fundamentalism's continued existence is the fact that certain issues are not addressed satisfactorily by the non-fundamentalist ideas. What needs to be realised is that fundamentalism is an incredibly basic human need, and cannot be denied indefinately. Therefore, the reconciliation of scientific findings to fundamentalist thought is something that will increase both the value of science and the satisfaction of the human element.
The success of the Bible lies in it's ability to tap into the human need for what we could call fundamentalism - the simple explanation - without directly contradicting common sense or direct observation. Other successful religions are this way as well, though generally to a lesser extent. Lesser and extinct religions usually have either more complex explanations or less believable ones.
: The biogenesis hurdle is poorly represented on this page, but that's because biogenesis is a seperate topic to irreducible complexity, and self-replication, per se, is not irreducibly complex. Other comments you make are really more relevant to teleological argument, for example. This article is an article about irreducible complexity, and I think that focus is useful and important. Martin 00:15, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biogenesis? 

message: I like the new text, which is a nice clear example, and a simpler one than is normally given. However, I wonder if "Gradual Replacment" is meant to be the same thing as "biochemical scaffolding", mentioned earlier. They seem very similar, certainly. Also, is "Gradual Replacment" a technical evolution term? Should we have an article on it? Martin 13:04, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gradual Replacement 

message: Greetings!
I´m no scientist, so correct me if I´m wrong here:
The basic argument is that irreducibly complex things must been designed by someone or something. Be it man, alien or god. But for any being to be able to engineer or design something like bombardier bee or any other of those examples, the being itself should be irreducibly complex, right? Or does the theory state that humans are not irreducibly complex?
- Kim Soares
2100 GMT, 15th june, 2004.
: No - a reducibly complex being can design an irreducibly complex item. For example, conventional biology states that humans are reducibly complex, and humans can design cars, which are irreducibly complex. Martin 18:22, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  irreducible complexity requires irreducible complexity 

message: In the context where these comments were added, they came across as editorializing rather than as adding facts to the article.  I am removing them to this Talk page for further discussion.  I would also ask that when they are considered for reintegration with the article, please pay attention to our style norms for presenting arguments and counter-arguments.  It is very hard to maintain a NPOV when we attempt to interweave line-by-line rebuttals in the article.  The case for and the case against should generally be very clearly separated.  Rossami (talk) 03:19, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editorializing from the article 

message: We need to follow this up logically.  According to this Web entry: , the (spring, baited) mousetrap was invented in essentially its present form by James Henry Atkinson in 1897.  We need answers to several questions before we can judge the complexity issue. For one thing, was Atkinson allergic to cats, or did he dislike cats?  They are good "mousers" generally.  For another, a cat seems less irreducible than a mousetrap; you can spay a cat, bob its tail, or  de-claw it (it's then not much good with mice any more, but it's alive), and a cat can function pretty well without one paw, for example. If "irreducible complexity" is the criterion for having been "intelligently designed" then the cat is less likely to have been so designed than the mousetrap.  Lastly,  if an allergy to or dislike of cats did not do so, what motivated Atkinson?  If it was desire for profit, he might have been greedy, a cardinal sin. In that case, by the level of discussion and "reasoning" common to ID people, the Designer may also have been greedy, and planned to sell us all - mice, cats, giraffes, people....  If Atkinson instead had listened to the adage "Build the better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door," we may conclude that at heart he was an attention-getter (possibly co-dependent on his audience), and by the same analogy, the Designer just craved attention.  The latter interpretation fits with the belief, common among fundamentalists, that the Designer expects us to frequently offer prayers of thanks and supplication. She or He may also  have been co-dependent. To cover that possibility, let's all pray that the Designer goes to a suitable therapist. Carrionluggage 05:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back to the Mousetrap 

message: The article currently begins
:Irreducible complexity is a controversial concept which considers that the generally accepted scientific theory that life evolved through biological evolution by natural selection alone is incomplete and flawed, that it contradicts the second law of thermodynamics, and that some additional mechanism is required to explain the origins of life.
I would prefer all articles to begin with some sort of explanation or definition of what it *is*, rather than what it is not, or what it contradicts.
I would prefer that this article begin more like the Flat Earth article -- with a definition that those who believe in it can agree with.
Would it be so wrong to give Behe (or someone else who believes in irreducible complexity) the first paragraph, if we have the entire rest of the article to rebut it?
Michael J. Behe writes:
:In The Origin of Species Darwin stated:
::If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.
:A system which meets Darwin's criterion is one which exhibits irreducible complexity. By irreducible complexity I mean a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced gradually by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, since any precursor to an irreducibly complex system is by definition nonfunctional. ... At this point, however, 'irreducibly complex' is just a term, whose power resides mostly in its definition. We must now ask if any real thing is in fact irreducibly complex, and, if so, then are any irreducibly complex things also biological systems.
I think this would work better as the first paragraph defining "irreducible complexity", if it were trimmed down some more. OK?
--DavidCary 03:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would be considerably worse. A quote is not a summary of the article content. Flat earth does not begin with a convoluted quote from "Christian Topography of Cosmas Indicopleustes." One puppy's opnion. KillerChihuahua 12:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text: David's action seems, to at least some degree, reasonable.  The introduction (as it is now) does not accurately describe the concept of irreducible complexity.  --Wade A. Tisthammer 04:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  better definition 

message: This article is of low quality.  It has been a magnet for original research.
I have struck lots of this out at Talk:Irreducible complexity/Cull.
I am going to remove these from the article.  This is not vandalism.
They are wrong mostly because IC as defined by Behe doesn't include several examples listed, primarily because Behe only thinks IC applies to biochemical systems.  On the other hand, examples cited by Behe are ignored and these will need to be addressed.
But the article needs to be burnt before it is regrown. — Dunc|☺ 16:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Great job, Dunc - this article was becoming more of a forum of OR than an encyclopedia article. I applaud your boldness, it was very much needed. KillerChihuahua 17:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I think you might have cut too far in a couple of places.  For example, you completely removed the example of the Bombardier Beetle.  On the /Cull page, you comment that "Behe doesn't claim that this is IC, it's more Gish's thing".  I don't disagree but as you made so clear in the improved Definitions section, more than just Michael Behe now lay claim to the concept of irreducible complexity.  Even if Behe isn't doing it, others are using Gish's example and arguments to attempt to support the concept of irreducible complexity. See some of these examples.  (Please remember to ignore the Wikipedia clones.)  Rossami (talk) 22:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes.  FWIW I don't like Google as a source so much because although the leaders of the creationist movements can say really dumb things, their supporters are capable of saying things that are infinitely dumber. So it's better if something comes from a Gish or a Behe rather than a Bloggs. — Dunc|☺ 09:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I also applaud your boldness, Dunc. --DavidCary 21:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cull 

message: I've moved the following empty sections here from the article until someone has content for them. Empty sections are not even stubs.
=== Protein transport ===
=== Immune system ===
=== AMP pathway ===
FeloniousMonk 17:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from article 

message: FeloniousMonk 17:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  AMP pathway 

message: Evolution according to Darwin and Dawkins is blind, thoughtless and heartless.  The expression "dog eats dog" comes to mind.  Assuming that evolution is "true", paradoxically, this creates a need for religion and laws of morality and good governance, etc., to create a world that does not have for humans that "dog eat dog" character mentioned earlier.
Tabletop 11:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really - altruism toward kin, etc., are compatible with evolutionary models.  Guettarda 05:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct.  I'd also refer you to Symbiosys and the thoughts of Lynn Margulis.--ghost 14:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If a species' goal is to survive, "dog eat dog" would hardly be a positive step in that direction.  Jim62sch 02:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paradox re evolution and morality 

message: I don't understand the removal of the history of the term.  Could you please explain the edit?--ghost 21:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I mentioned it here.  --Wade A. Tisthammer 21:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tisthammerw's edit

message: My, my, all this fuss and furor over a worthless concept.Carrionluggage 02:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, but I still think it's important to get the facts right and stick by Wikipedia policy.  --Wade A. Tisthammer 03:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now, Carrion, even those who believed that the earth was flat felt that their idea had some merit. Jim62sch 23:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who would want credit for a worthless idea? 

message: I suggest this subsection to be removed, because it's simplistic, is out of context, and unclear. It should be either rewritten, explaining its role in the issue and its conclusion or be removed. It seems to be a philosophical issue related to God paradoxes and theodicy, and in that case it is not a directly related topic and would require a much longer discussion.
Rend 00:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Behe himself says that designing life (as for irreducibly complex systems) requires a lot of intelligence but not the supernatural, and thus the section appears to be rather out of place.  As Rend said, it seems to be a philosophical issue related to God paradoxes and theodicy.  Perhaps more applicably, this argument smells suspiciously of original research.  I suggest this challenged material be removed, especially if no citation can be provided of a leading ID opponent making this argument.  --Wade A. Tisthammer 18:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't say. What a surprise... FeloniousMonk 18:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, I do tend to be strict about citations and original research.  But there appears to be no reason to think that Rend’s concerns are unjustified.  Even if we throw out Wikipeida policy regarding citations and original research, the subsection does seem out of place here, particularly given Behe's views regarding irreducible complexity and the supernatural.  --Wade A. Tisthammer 22:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  5.5 God and Irreducible Complexity