This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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.
-- 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
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
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. :)
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)
RK, your last edit added nothing to this except to make it POV. Though most sceintists don't agree with Behe's conclusions, he is certainly not 'entirely rejected'. For example, you changed 'contraindicates' to 'refutes', which implies that the question is decided, when it is not. I personally find the previous edit more neutral, and I'd suggest reverting it. Comments anyone?
DJ Clayworth 13:46, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
This whole entry is too long - maybe somebody can condense it (or recommend it for deletion). This article seems about as long as the article on DNA, but that represents the sum total of the work of thousands of scientists in hundreds of laboratories, and it is fact. The present "article" is a rambling piece of argumentation between scientists who are not really interested (until some school board tries to alter their syllabus) and others who have a fixed belief in the Bible, but for some strange reason dig through scientific papers to find points that they consider either to prove science wrong or to prove that science supports the biblical stories. Take your pick. This might be fine for a bulletin board someplace but it sullies the concept of an encyclopedia. Carrionluggage 04:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
While I do not endorse the validity of this particular, or any general approach to the refutation of evolution, using charged terms like "mainstream scientists", doesn't quite hit the mark NPOV-wise in an article like this. The term might be nearly neutral in a less controversial article, but here is like sprinkling "true christians" in an article about some small sectarian movement.-- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 15:06, Aug 27, 2003 (UTC)
Something like "Behe's views are not accepted by a majority of scientists" would probably be accurate and fair. DJ Clayworth 15:45, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
The problem remains: if a beetle, let alone a human, is too complex to evolve, where did the designer (God or other) come from? Vicki Rosenzweig 21:50, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
If we're going to cite non-peer-reviewed stuff and Behe's Web page, shouldn't there be links to the opposition? I'd like to add something from talkorigins.org. Vicki Rosenzweig 21:50, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Rewrite is much better. DJ Clayworth 13:20, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)
This example is disputed by other biologists who observe that there are flagella which are simpler in form than the type Behe cites yet which function perfectly well despite "missing parts".
There are also even simpler bacteria that only have components of Behe's flagellum but whose components perform a myriad of functions apart from propulsion. The key is that the component parts of the complex flagellum can perform many roles in component form.
For example, the bubonic plague bacterium Yersinia pestis has an organelle assembly very similar to a complex flagellum except that it functions as a needle to inject toxins into host cells.
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.
I felt that the section on the examples was biased, and have thus removed some sections of text, indicated below:
First sentence is stating the obvious - if this were not so, we wouldn't include it in a list of possible examples. Second sentence is the writers POV: proponents of irreducible complexity do not believe they are applying an argument from lack of imagination. Third sentence is too vague to be useful or verifiable. Place the details on bombardier beetle first.
As above.
First sentence is just a restatement of this being a possible example. Remainder as above.
Still unverifiable. Give actual ways, such as the scaffolding example, or don't bother. Martin 14:40, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I moved the talkorigins link to the page on bombardier beetles. I also removed the mention of Darwin - as it was not an exact quote, and as the article immediately pointed out that it was misleading, it didn't seem helpful. Some stuff from the section with the very long name: (;-))
This isn't about conclusions, but forerunners - so I like this stuff in the forerunners section.
Yes, which is what we already say a couple paras above. Do we need to repeat?
That seems like a strawman to me, and somewhat biased. Behe and others are aware of the alternatives. Behe is particuarly impressed by Kauffman, for example. They just consider the alternatives less compelling than some kind of deity.
The first bit is repetition again. However, the point about lay sentiment, and creationist literature, is well-made. Perhaps we need a section on promotion/popularisation of irreducible complexity? Martin 15:07, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Martin, if you think changes need to be made... make them. i just drastically renovated the page so it flows in some kind of logical order with a cohesive narrative. the copy & pasting and paraphrasing was bound to introduce some biased sentencecs and repetition... just edit. if i disagree i will re-edit!
User:Plasticlax
I removed this. Firstly, it is attacking a strawman argument: Behe does not argue that ID is the only possible inference from irreducible complexity. Indeed, he explicitly allows for alternative explanations. Personally he believes that Intelligent Design is the most compelling explanation, but he's not constructing a logical proof, so it is inaccurate to accuse him of a false dichotomy.
Secondly, it is duplicated in the section "Significance of irreducible complexity, if found". Martin 21:33, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I am uncomfortable that the text was removed. I am not sure that it is merely unattributable "opinion". This strikes me as a logical part of the rebuttal section. I'm pretty sure I remember reading a similar argument in Gould's The Panda's Thumb. I've moving it here to preserve the text so we have a chance to think about it a bit longer. Rossami 22:38, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Looks like MyRedDice has systematically removed all the substantive criticism of the IC argument, pretending that he is removing "opinion" when actually removing hard logic. Some of this stuff needs to be restored, unless this is intended to serve as a creationist propaganda page. (Look, for example, at some of the stuff that was still in there back at the time I did my last edit.) — B.Bryant 08:50, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
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)
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.
Right. I've put in a POV dispute notice as the following User:DLR (usurped) has reverted my edits.
Dunc_Harris| ☺ 08:46, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
This article is making some pretty broad claims about reductive physicalism in general that I'm not sure are warranted. While in many areas reductive physicalists vastly outnumber non-reductionists (and non-physicalists), it's certainly not universally accepted. In particular, in philosophy of mind reductive physicalism has seen a vast drop-off in popularity since the 1970s, as many people now feel developing a satisfactory account of mind and brain along those lines is unlikely to be possible. Supervenience is still popular, but outright reductionism is not. I suppose in that respect, philosophy of mind vaguely agrees with intelligent design on this matter, although the relationship is complex: Philosophers of mind do not usually try to argue about the evolution of mind, at least not in explicit terms. -- Delirium 01:42, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
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)
This portion was moved to the more appropriate "opposition" section as it contains opposing opinions rather than actual information about the concept of irreducible complexity.
Irreducible complexity is rejected by the majority of the scientific community. The main concerns with the concept is that it utilises an argument from ignorance, that Behe fails to provide a testable hypothesis, and that there is a lack of evidence in support of the concept. As such irreducible complexity is seen as an example of creationist pseudoscience.
And it has now been moved back to the introduction section. While our style guide strongly discourages tit-for-tat rebuttals, the introductory section should cover all aspects of the article including a brief statement that opposition exists and, whenever possible, a very general statement of why/how/who/etc. This paragraph does so in what I believe to be in a fact-based and NPOV manner. To bury all existence of opposition until 5 screen-shots down in the article would be an inappropriate presentation of the facts and would be a disservice to readers. I must also disagree with the statement that this constitutes "opinion". It is not opinion but testable fact to say that "A is rejected by B" or that "B said C." B may or may not be wrong but B did say it. (By the way, I also cleaned up some accidental duplication of other paragraphs in the same edit.) Rossami (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Wondering why Duncharris reverted my changes. Was there any consensus on this? David Bergan 17:38, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, my argument from wishful thinking is fallacious. That was the point. It is fallacious just as Rossami's argument from lack of imagination is fallacious, and uses the same framework. (Compare 2. I can not imagine a mechanism by which natural selection could have produced these parts. to 3. But I cannot ever resort to thinking these things were designed.) But just because that is how I might view evolutionary biology does not mean that evolutionary biology IS based on that fallacious argument. Similarly, just because Rossami views Behe as researching under his argument from lack of imagination doesn't mean that irreducible complexity/intelligent design IS based on his fallacious argument.
Moving on to your analysis... By the definition of IC, my laptop is most certainly IC. It is made up of many parts where if I took any of them out, the thing would stop working. Consider what would happen if I removed just one of any of the following: the processor, the RAM, the hard drive, the power supply/battery, the motherboard, or the bus. Exactly, no more wikipedia for me. Behe uses the example of a spring-loaded mousetrap... same thing. My point is that irreducible complexity is not a biological term. It is a concept that applies to inorganic things all over the earth. All Behe did was raise the question of whether or not biological systems also have IC parts, because based on his research they do.
"The reason this is termed an " argument from ignorance" is because it is based on a lack of knowledge; that is, it's not obvious how this thing could have arisen from gradual steps, therefore it is impossible." ( siafu) Again, the logic isn't framed that way. (Insisting on framing it that way is setting up a straw man. Shouldn't any honest opponent seek to refute the best way an argument can be framed?) The logic is "All IC objects are designed. Biology has IC objects. Therefore some parts of biology were designed." Behe didn't take systems and say, "I don't know how this was made gradually, so until I do I'm going to write books and make money saying they were designed." No, he took systems and said, "Hey look, this is IC. If I take any one of these parts out, the thing doesn't work any more. Based on my knowledge of IC, all inorganic IC objects are designed, and the concept seems to imply that all IC objects (inorganic or organic) necessitate design."
"As far as pseudoscience, there's no actual evidence in support of IC, hence treating it as fact is inherently pseudoscience. Your reference to radiation is a false analogy; no one is claiming that animals are inherently radioactive, and doing so would be insane (as they clearly are not), not pseudoscience." ( siafu) How can you say that there is no actual evidence in support of IC? Look at your computer, your car, your watch, your TV... they are all IC. I think what you meant is that there is no evidence that biological systems have IC parts. Fair enough, the point is certainly under dispute. But that doesn't make the concept of IC pseudoscience just because it is unclear whether it applies to biology or not. Think of IC as primarily an inorganic concept, because there isn't any doubt that it exists in many man-made objects... and applying IC to such objects surely isn't pseudoscience. I also think of radiation as an inorganic concept... there isn't much doubt that it exists in many inorganic materials and applying it to such objects surely isn't pseudoscience.
Furthermore, radiation does not become pseudoscience once one person asks, "Do living things have radiation?" Neither does IC become pseudoscience once one person asks, "Do living things have IC parts?" David Bergan 14:51, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for elaborating. I guess I didn't understand your position as well as I thought I did.
Anyway, let's examine the ABCD example. Just to see if I can get the concept, I'm going to apply it to a hypothetical evolution of a current frog's eye (D) to the next best frog's eye (ABC).
Hmmm... at this point, the analogy seems to break down. The reason is because the AD is not the next best eye... ABC is. If AD were the next best eye, then the next best eye isn't Irreducibly Complex and the conversation is irrelevant. But let me try to make another run at it...
This doesn't work either, because our frog just lost its eye. It also is making the assumption that the new inner ear is not Irreducibly Complex... it's just a simple one protein addition to the eye. But let me try another...
This still seems super-hokey, to me. I must be missing the point somewhere. Can you help me with a better example of how this principle works? Thanks. David Bergan 16:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I think the definitions are drifting in this ABCD example. This issue is not whether Function Y is or is not irreducibly complex. The function is a verb (for example, to see). The question is whether the organ which performs this function (the eye) is necessarily irreducibly complex. To clarify the example above (at the risk of putting words into the mouth of Ann, a hypothetical believer in irreducible complexity):
So far, this is a mere definition. It expresses no value judgment. It creates a term to describe a condition as Ann thinks it exists in the organism today. The logical flaw occurs in the next step when:
This is Ann's "argument from lack of imagination". Ann failed to consider alternate pathways which could have led to the evolution of organ ABC. In this example, she overlooked the subtractive pathway described above. She has incorrectly assumed that the predecessor organ to organ ABC must have been a component of ABC. Rossami (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm going to try to separate your thoughts so they can be discussed or debated individually.
One quick response before I hit the sheets tonight. When I was talking about "linear/sequential/direct" natural selection I didn't mean to say that it wasn't still based on randomness. I just meant that once you get the necessary/advantageous trait, natural selection holds onto it and then can start waiting for the next advantage. The neutral mutations can go as easily as they come. But I'm pretty sure that the odds of getting the reducible advatange far outweighs the irreducible one. For example, analogous to the elephants in the cold would be the strep bacteria in Augmentin. The Augmentin-resistant strain will pop up if you don't take your medicine doses right. Sure an individual bacteria needs to luckily get the right gene, but the population on the whole will adapt and survive. That's a scientific fact.
Thus, for reducible components, you can exert selective "pressure" on a population to get it to "directly" adapt. You can get the big-beaked finches to thrive if you take away the small-beaked's food and double the big-beaked's rations. This "pressure" is what Darwin noticed and extrapolated into his theory. That was the mechanism that was supposed to solve it all. But with IC adaptations, the pressure isn't there. We can't rely on natural selection to help a species out, if the species needs an IC component. So we are left saying that either these adaptations happened totally randomly, or, as you pointed out, there could be some other unknown mechanism we have yet to discover. Or they were designed. David Bergan 04:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
The definition is too weak, because it only requires complexity that is irreducible in terms of static components. That's irrelevant to evolution, because in biological systems, the component parts evolve together. The only meaningful way irreducible complexity could be demonstrated would be to show mathematically that there exists a system that could only have evolved out of something equally complex. There are no known examples of this, and there likely won't be any until molecular biology becomes a lot more advanced. Peter Grey 20:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I see this point was addressed before, apparently without reaching any consensus.
I support evolutionary theory, and I think creationism is pseudoscience. I do not think "irreducible complexity" is pseudoscience, however—it's not science at all. Behe gives a clear and workable definition of irreducible complexity in his book, then goes on to argue that certain parts of living organisms to him appear to be irreducibly complex, then draws conclusions from that.
You can certainly disagree with Behe that there is IC in nature; you can even argue that IC as a concept is meaningless, useless or inherently flawed. But regardless of that, who would believe irreducible complexity itself is science? I don't think even Michael Behe would call irreducible complexity as a concept a scientific theory, no more than vector algebra is one. The sentence is also quite misleading in that Michael Behe himself is a supporter of the evolutionary theory—though he denies evolution can explain the complexities of life, of course.
I think there's a slight confusion of terms here: what opponents would label pseudoscience is not the concept of irreducible complexity, but using that concept to argue that 1. life exhibits irreducible complexity and 2. irreducibly complex things must be designed by (an) intelligent being(s) and therefore 3. life was designed by (an) intelligent being(s)—in short, intelligent design. But what people think of ID is best left to that article.
I don't see any justification for calling IC any sort of science, pseudo- or not. That would be intelligent design. With that in mind, I've edited the last paragraph of the intro. I couldn't see any way to save the last sentence (the "opponents say IC is creationist pseudoscience" angle) so I've removed it. I hope I won't get into trouble with people who think we have to have the word "pseudoscience" in there somewhere, because I can't see any way of getting that in by any other way than shoehorning. 82.92.119.11 12:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
By the way, fellas, no one ever responded to my arguments under "Justification". That being the case, I intend to make those changes again since there is no logical opposition to them. David Bergan 18:20, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
That's a good point. Tell me, how do we know that something is radioactive? Then tell me how we know if something is irreducibly complex. And please explain why determining the first is "scientific" and the second is not. David Bergan 15:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Functionality does get a bit vague if you start bringing in other functions. The point of the bunny sticker was that if your laptop stopped working one day I can guarantee that no technician would ask you to remove it for any reason besides that it is ugly. (Well, maybe if the sticker was really big and you put it on the center of the monitor...) When we keep the perspective focused on "what lets my laptop access wikipedia" the sticker is an additional reducible component. But if we focus on "how to make my laptop impress my girlfriend", then the bunny sticker will go a lot further than showing her you can access wikipedia.
I think I'm just misunderstanding your subtractive process argument. Do you have an example of ABC --> AD (in preferably the inorganic realm) that can help me see your point? David Bergan 16:56, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Fish | Reptile | Mammal |
---|---|---|
Jaw bone | Jaw bone | Ossicle |
Gill | Jaw bone | Jaw bone |
This discussion is rapidly devolving into a flame war between various sides. All you need for NPOV is good cites, people. Good luck, everyone, I'm outta here.
82.92.119.11
16:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
We need to follow this up logically. According to this Web entry: [5], 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)
The article currently begins
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?
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)
A summary of the article content would go against wikipedia guidelines, which specifically state "Start your article with a concise paragraph defining the topic at hand and mentioning the most important points." The Flat Earth article begins with a definition. The Phlogiston theory article begins with the definition (plus the important point that it is "obsolete"): The phlogiston theory is an obsolete scientific theory of combustion.
Please forgive me for following Wikipedia guidelines and unilaterally adding a definition to the beginning of the article. -- DavidCary 21:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
The response of the YECists to DBB was to say "but we've been saying this for the past thirty years, but there is more evidence than what you've said and by reducing God this level you've sold out". I think it best mentioned in that context of the general response and similarity to earlier arguments. — Dunc| ☺ 23:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Acronyms demystified: YEC = Young Earth creationism/ist, DBB = Darwin's Black Box - Guettarda 01:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I've moved the following empty sections here from the article until someone has content for them. Empty sections are not even stubs.
This section needs expansion. You can help by
adding to it. (May 2010) |
This section needs expansion. You can help by
adding to it. (May 2010) |
This section needs expansion. You can help by
adding to it. (May 2010) |
FeloniousMonk 17:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I thought my comments had removed the questionable content, but apparently they just relocated it. (The following was first presented in the intelligent design article; it now seems appropriate to produce here.)
Additionally, the definition of "irreducible complexity" provided in the introduction is inaccurate. A far more accurate description of irreducible complexity below:
The present introduction presents a highly inaccurate description of the concept of irreducible complexity. I suggest it be changed. (Note: if anyone doubts the veracity of my definition, I'll be happy to quote Behe himself.) -- Wade A. Tisthammer 04:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment: It seems clear Bertalanffy came up with the concept - any objections to replacing term (which may be a source of argument anyway due to translation issues) with concept? KillerChihuahua ?!? 14:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
"The properties and modes of action of higher levels are not explicable by the summation of the properties and modes of action of their components taken in isolation, if, however, we know the ensemble of the components and the relations existing between them, then the higher levels are derivable from the components."
Ludwig von Bertalanffy, Problems of Life, 1952, Pg. 148 KillerChihuahua ?!? 20:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
Everything in Wikipedia should be verifyable by sources. This is especially important if an author is cited. So if the term irreducible complexity is attributed to Bertalanffy, then a verbatim quote should be given, preferable in the article, but at least in the talk page. If no quote cannot be given, then the attribution should be removed.
I give one example here: The phrase 'oida oti ouden oida' 'I know that I know nothing' is attributed to Socrates. Looking up the original source, one finds:
So either Socrates never said "I know that I know nothing", or if he said it, it is not documented. He said something similar, though, in the context of a court hearing.
Andreas 01:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC) amended 03:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
And what is the semantic difference between 'oida oti ouden oida' and 'I do not know anything, do not think I do either.', absent the Greek for the second quote? Given that the second quote is a translation, I'd really like to see the original. I'm not saying that you are wrong, but the text (cite) might be nice. Jim62sch 02:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
My, my, all this fuss and furor over a worthless concept. Carrionluggage 02:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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.
-- 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
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
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. :)
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)
RK, your last edit added nothing to this except to make it POV. Though most sceintists don't agree with Behe's conclusions, he is certainly not 'entirely rejected'. For example, you changed 'contraindicates' to 'refutes', which implies that the question is decided, when it is not. I personally find the previous edit more neutral, and I'd suggest reverting it. Comments anyone?
DJ Clayworth 13:46, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
This whole entry is too long - maybe somebody can condense it (or recommend it for deletion). This article seems about as long as the article on DNA, but that represents the sum total of the work of thousands of scientists in hundreds of laboratories, and it is fact. The present "article" is a rambling piece of argumentation between scientists who are not really interested (until some school board tries to alter their syllabus) and others who have a fixed belief in the Bible, but for some strange reason dig through scientific papers to find points that they consider either to prove science wrong or to prove that science supports the biblical stories. Take your pick. This might be fine for a bulletin board someplace but it sullies the concept of an encyclopedia. Carrionluggage 04:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
While I do not endorse the validity of this particular, or any general approach to the refutation of evolution, using charged terms like "mainstream scientists", doesn't quite hit the mark NPOV-wise in an article like this. The term might be nearly neutral in a less controversial article, but here is like sprinkling "true christians" in an article about some small sectarian movement.-- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 15:06, Aug 27, 2003 (UTC)
Something like "Behe's views are not accepted by a majority of scientists" would probably be accurate and fair. DJ Clayworth 15:45, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
The problem remains: if a beetle, let alone a human, is too complex to evolve, where did the designer (God or other) come from? Vicki Rosenzweig 21:50, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
If we're going to cite non-peer-reviewed stuff and Behe's Web page, shouldn't there be links to the opposition? I'd like to add something from talkorigins.org. Vicki Rosenzweig 21:50, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Rewrite is much better. DJ Clayworth 13:20, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)
This example is disputed by other biologists who observe that there are flagella which are simpler in form than the type Behe cites yet which function perfectly well despite "missing parts".
There are also even simpler bacteria that only have components of Behe's flagellum but whose components perform a myriad of functions apart from propulsion. The key is that the component parts of the complex flagellum can perform many roles in component form.
For example, the bubonic plague bacterium Yersinia pestis has an organelle assembly very similar to a complex flagellum except that it functions as a needle to inject toxins into host cells.
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.
I felt that the section on the examples was biased, and have thus removed some sections of text, indicated below:
First sentence is stating the obvious - if this were not so, we wouldn't include it in a list of possible examples. Second sentence is the writers POV: proponents of irreducible complexity do not believe they are applying an argument from lack of imagination. Third sentence is too vague to be useful or verifiable. Place the details on bombardier beetle first.
As above.
First sentence is just a restatement of this being a possible example. Remainder as above.
Still unverifiable. Give actual ways, such as the scaffolding example, or don't bother. Martin 14:40, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I moved the talkorigins link to the page on bombardier beetles. I also removed the mention of Darwin - as it was not an exact quote, and as the article immediately pointed out that it was misleading, it didn't seem helpful. Some stuff from the section with the very long name: (;-))
This isn't about conclusions, but forerunners - so I like this stuff in the forerunners section.
Yes, which is what we already say a couple paras above. Do we need to repeat?
That seems like a strawman to me, and somewhat biased. Behe and others are aware of the alternatives. Behe is particuarly impressed by Kauffman, for example. They just consider the alternatives less compelling than some kind of deity.
The first bit is repetition again. However, the point about lay sentiment, and creationist literature, is well-made. Perhaps we need a section on promotion/popularisation of irreducible complexity? Martin 15:07, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Martin, if you think changes need to be made... make them. i just drastically renovated the page so it flows in some kind of logical order with a cohesive narrative. the copy & pasting and paraphrasing was bound to introduce some biased sentencecs and repetition... just edit. if i disagree i will re-edit!
User:Plasticlax
I removed this. Firstly, it is attacking a strawman argument: Behe does not argue that ID is the only possible inference from irreducible complexity. Indeed, he explicitly allows for alternative explanations. Personally he believes that Intelligent Design is the most compelling explanation, but he's not constructing a logical proof, so it is inaccurate to accuse him of a false dichotomy.
Secondly, it is duplicated in the section "Significance of irreducible complexity, if found". Martin 21:33, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I am uncomfortable that the text was removed. I am not sure that it is merely unattributable "opinion". This strikes me as a logical part of the rebuttal section. I'm pretty sure I remember reading a similar argument in Gould's The Panda's Thumb. I've moving it here to preserve the text so we have a chance to think about it a bit longer. Rossami 22:38, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Looks like MyRedDice has systematically removed all the substantive criticism of the IC argument, pretending that he is removing "opinion" when actually removing hard logic. Some of this stuff needs to be restored, unless this is intended to serve as a creationist propaganda page. (Look, for example, at some of the stuff that was still in there back at the time I did my last edit.) — B.Bryant 08:50, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
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)
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.
Right. I've put in a POV dispute notice as the following User:DLR (usurped) has reverted my edits.
Dunc_Harris| ☺ 08:46, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
This article is making some pretty broad claims about reductive physicalism in general that I'm not sure are warranted. While in many areas reductive physicalists vastly outnumber non-reductionists (and non-physicalists), it's certainly not universally accepted. In particular, in philosophy of mind reductive physicalism has seen a vast drop-off in popularity since the 1970s, as many people now feel developing a satisfactory account of mind and brain along those lines is unlikely to be possible. Supervenience is still popular, but outright reductionism is not. I suppose in that respect, philosophy of mind vaguely agrees with intelligent design on this matter, although the relationship is complex: Philosophers of mind do not usually try to argue about the evolution of mind, at least not in explicit terms. -- Delirium 01:42, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
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)
This portion was moved to the more appropriate "opposition" section as it contains opposing opinions rather than actual information about the concept of irreducible complexity.
Irreducible complexity is rejected by the majority of the scientific community. The main concerns with the concept is that it utilises an argument from ignorance, that Behe fails to provide a testable hypothesis, and that there is a lack of evidence in support of the concept. As such irreducible complexity is seen as an example of creationist pseudoscience.
And it has now been moved back to the introduction section. While our style guide strongly discourages tit-for-tat rebuttals, the introductory section should cover all aspects of the article including a brief statement that opposition exists and, whenever possible, a very general statement of why/how/who/etc. This paragraph does so in what I believe to be in a fact-based and NPOV manner. To bury all existence of opposition until 5 screen-shots down in the article would be an inappropriate presentation of the facts and would be a disservice to readers. I must also disagree with the statement that this constitutes "opinion". It is not opinion but testable fact to say that "A is rejected by B" or that "B said C." B may or may not be wrong but B did say it. (By the way, I also cleaned up some accidental duplication of other paragraphs in the same edit.) Rossami (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Wondering why Duncharris reverted my changes. Was there any consensus on this? David Bergan 17:38, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, my argument from wishful thinking is fallacious. That was the point. It is fallacious just as Rossami's argument from lack of imagination is fallacious, and uses the same framework. (Compare 2. I can not imagine a mechanism by which natural selection could have produced these parts. to 3. But I cannot ever resort to thinking these things were designed.) But just because that is how I might view evolutionary biology does not mean that evolutionary biology IS based on that fallacious argument. Similarly, just because Rossami views Behe as researching under his argument from lack of imagination doesn't mean that irreducible complexity/intelligent design IS based on his fallacious argument.
Moving on to your analysis... By the definition of IC, my laptop is most certainly IC. It is made up of many parts where if I took any of them out, the thing would stop working. Consider what would happen if I removed just one of any of the following: the processor, the RAM, the hard drive, the power supply/battery, the motherboard, or the bus. Exactly, no more wikipedia for me. Behe uses the example of a spring-loaded mousetrap... same thing. My point is that irreducible complexity is not a biological term. It is a concept that applies to inorganic things all over the earth. All Behe did was raise the question of whether or not biological systems also have IC parts, because based on his research they do.
"The reason this is termed an " argument from ignorance" is because it is based on a lack of knowledge; that is, it's not obvious how this thing could have arisen from gradual steps, therefore it is impossible." ( siafu) Again, the logic isn't framed that way. (Insisting on framing it that way is setting up a straw man. Shouldn't any honest opponent seek to refute the best way an argument can be framed?) The logic is "All IC objects are designed. Biology has IC objects. Therefore some parts of biology were designed." Behe didn't take systems and say, "I don't know how this was made gradually, so until I do I'm going to write books and make money saying they were designed." No, he took systems and said, "Hey look, this is IC. If I take any one of these parts out, the thing doesn't work any more. Based on my knowledge of IC, all inorganic IC objects are designed, and the concept seems to imply that all IC objects (inorganic or organic) necessitate design."
"As far as pseudoscience, there's no actual evidence in support of IC, hence treating it as fact is inherently pseudoscience. Your reference to radiation is a false analogy; no one is claiming that animals are inherently radioactive, and doing so would be insane (as they clearly are not), not pseudoscience." ( siafu) How can you say that there is no actual evidence in support of IC? Look at your computer, your car, your watch, your TV... they are all IC. I think what you meant is that there is no evidence that biological systems have IC parts. Fair enough, the point is certainly under dispute. But that doesn't make the concept of IC pseudoscience just because it is unclear whether it applies to biology or not. Think of IC as primarily an inorganic concept, because there isn't any doubt that it exists in many man-made objects... and applying IC to such objects surely isn't pseudoscience. I also think of radiation as an inorganic concept... there isn't much doubt that it exists in many inorganic materials and applying it to such objects surely isn't pseudoscience.
Furthermore, radiation does not become pseudoscience once one person asks, "Do living things have radiation?" Neither does IC become pseudoscience once one person asks, "Do living things have IC parts?" David Bergan 14:51, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for elaborating. I guess I didn't understand your position as well as I thought I did.
Anyway, let's examine the ABCD example. Just to see if I can get the concept, I'm going to apply it to a hypothetical evolution of a current frog's eye (D) to the next best frog's eye (ABC).
Hmmm... at this point, the analogy seems to break down. The reason is because the AD is not the next best eye... ABC is. If AD were the next best eye, then the next best eye isn't Irreducibly Complex and the conversation is irrelevant. But let me try to make another run at it...
This doesn't work either, because our frog just lost its eye. It also is making the assumption that the new inner ear is not Irreducibly Complex... it's just a simple one protein addition to the eye. But let me try another...
This still seems super-hokey, to me. I must be missing the point somewhere. Can you help me with a better example of how this principle works? Thanks. David Bergan 16:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I think the definitions are drifting in this ABCD example. This issue is not whether Function Y is or is not irreducibly complex. The function is a verb (for example, to see). The question is whether the organ which performs this function (the eye) is necessarily irreducibly complex. To clarify the example above (at the risk of putting words into the mouth of Ann, a hypothetical believer in irreducible complexity):
So far, this is a mere definition. It expresses no value judgment. It creates a term to describe a condition as Ann thinks it exists in the organism today. The logical flaw occurs in the next step when:
This is Ann's "argument from lack of imagination". Ann failed to consider alternate pathways which could have led to the evolution of organ ABC. In this example, she overlooked the subtractive pathway described above. She has incorrectly assumed that the predecessor organ to organ ABC must have been a component of ABC. Rossami (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm going to try to separate your thoughts so they can be discussed or debated individually.
One quick response before I hit the sheets tonight. When I was talking about "linear/sequential/direct" natural selection I didn't mean to say that it wasn't still based on randomness. I just meant that once you get the necessary/advantageous trait, natural selection holds onto it and then can start waiting for the next advantage. The neutral mutations can go as easily as they come. But I'm pretty sure that the odds of getting the reducible advatange far outweighs the irreducible one. For example, analogous to the elephants in the cold would be the strep bacteria in Augmentin. The Augmentin-resistant strain will pop up if you don't take your medicine doses right. Sure an individual bacteria needs to luckily get the right gene, but the population on the whole will adapt and survive. That's a scientific fact.
Thus, for reducible components, you can exert selective "pressure" on a population to get it to "directly" adapt. You can get the big-beaked finches to thrive if you take away the small-beaked's food and double the big-beaked's rations. This "pressure" is what Darwin noticed and extrapolated into his theory. That was the mechanism that was supposed to solve it all. But with IC adaptations, the pressure isn't there. We can't rely on natural selection to help a species out, if the species needs an IC component. So we are left saying that either these adaptations happened totally randomly, or, as you pointed out, there could be some other unknown mechanism we have yet to discover. Or they were designed. David Bergan 04:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
The definition is too weak, because it only requires complexity that is irreducible in terms of static components. That's irrelevant to evolution, because in biological systems, the component parts evolve together. The only meaningful way irreducible complexity could be demonstrated would be to show mathematically that there exists a system that could only have evolved out of something equally complex. There are no known examples of this, and there likely won't be any until molecular biology becomes a lot more advanced. Peter Grey 20:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I see this point was addressed before, apparently without reaching any consensus.
I support evolutionary theory, and I think creationism is pseudoscience. I do not think "irreducible complexity" is pseudoscience, however—it's not science at all. Behe gives a clear and workable definition of irreducible complexity in his book, then goes on to argue that certain parts of living organisms to him appear to be irreducibly complex, then draws conclusions from that.
You can certainly disagree with Behe that there is IC in nature; you can even argue that IC as a concept is meaningless, useless or inherently flawed. But regardless of that, who would believe irreducible complexity itself is science? I don't think even Michael Behe would call irreducible complexity as a concept a scientific theory, no more than vector algebra is one. The sentence is also quite misleading in that Michael Behe himself is a supporter of the evolutionary theory—though he denies evolution can explain the complexities of life, of course.
I think there's a slight confusion of terms here: what opponents would label pseudoscience is not the concept of irreducible complexity, but using that concept to argue that 1. life exhibits irreducible complexity and 2. irreducibly complex things must be designed by (an) intelligent being(s) and therefore 3. life was designed by (an) intelligent being(s)—in short, intelligent design. But what people think of ID is best left to that article.
I don't see any justification for calling IC any sort of science, pseudo- or not. That would be intelligent design. With that in mind, I've edited the last paragraph of the intro. I couldn't see any way to save the last sentence (the "opponents say IC is creationist pseudoscience" angle) so I've removed it. I hope I won't get into trouble with people who think we have to have the word "pseudoscience" in there somewhere, because I can't see any way of getting that in by any other way than shoehorning. 82.92.119.11 12:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
By the way, fellas, no one ever responded to my arguments under "Justification". That being the case, I intend to make those changes again since there is no logical opposition to them. David Bergan 18:20, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
That's a good point. Tell me, how do we know that something is radioactive? Then tell me how we know if something is irreducibly complex. And please explain why determining the first is "scientific" and the second is not. David Bergan 15:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Functionality does get a bit vague if you start bringing in other functions. The point of the bunny sticker was that if your laptop stopped working one day I can guarantee that no technician would ask you to remove it for any reason besides that it is ugly. (Well, maybe if the sticker was really big and you put it on the center of the monitor...) When we keep the perspective focused on "what lets my laptop access wikipedia" the sticker is an additional reducible component. But if we focus on "how to make my laptop impress my girlfriend", then the bunny sticker will go a lot further than showing her you can access wikipedia.
I think I'm just misunderstanding your subtractive process argument. Do you have an example of ABC --> AD (in preferably the inorganic realm) that can help me see your point? David Bergan 16:56, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Fish | Reptile | Mammal |
---|---|---|
Jaw bone | Jaw bone | Ossicle |
Gill | Jaw bone | Jaw bone |
This discussion is rapidly devolving into a flame war between various sides. All you need for NPOV is good cites, people. Good luck, everyone, I'm outta here.
82.92.119.11
16:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
We need to follow this up logically. According to this Web entry: [5], 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)
The article currently begins
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?
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)
A summary of the article content would go against wikipedia guidelines, which specifically state "Start your article with a concise paragraph defining the topic at hand and mentioning the most important points." The Flat Earth article begins with a definition. The Phlogiston theory article begins with the definition (plus the important point that it is "obsolete"): The phlogiston theory is an obsolete scientific theory of combustion.
Please forgive me for following Wikipedia guidelines and unilaterally adding a definition to the beginning of the article. -- DavidCary 21:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
The response of the YECists to DBB was to say "but we've been saying this for the past thirty years, but there is more evidence than what you've said and by reducing God this level you've sold out". I think it best mentioned in that context of the general response and similarity to earlier arguments. — Dunc| ☺ 23:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Acronyms demystified: YEC = Young Earth creationism/ist, DBB = Darwin's Black Box - Guettarda 01:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I've moved the following empty sections here from the article until someone has content for them. Empty sections are not even stubs.
This section needs expansion. You can help by
adding to it. (May 2010) |
This section needs expansion. You can help by
adding to it. (May 2010) |
This section needs expansion. You can help by
adding to it. (May 2010) |
FeloniousMonk 17:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I thought my comments had removed the questionable content, but apparently they just relocated it. (The following was first presented in the intelligent design article; it now seems appropriate to produce here.)
Additionally, the definition of "irreducible complexity" provided in the introduction is inaccurate. A far more accurate description of irreducible complexity below:
The present introduction presents a highly inaccurate description of the concept of irreducible complexity. I suggest it be changed. (Note: if anyone doubts the veracity of my definition, I'll be happy to quote Behe himself.) -- Wade A. Tisthammer 04:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment: It seems clear Bertalanffy came up with the concept - any objections to replacing term (which may be a source of argument anyway due to translation issues) with concept? KillerChihuahua ?!? 14:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
"The properties and modes of action of higher levels are not explicable by the summation of the properties and modes of action of their components taken in isolation, if, however, we know the ensemble of the components and the relations existing between them, then the higher levels are derivable from the components."
Ludwig von Bertalanffy, Problems of Life, 1952, Pg. 148 KillerChihuahua ?!? 20:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
Everything in Wikipedia should be verifyable by sources. This is especially important if an author is cited. So if the term irreducible complexity is attributed to Bertalanffy, then a verbatim quote should be given, preferable in the article, but at least in the talk page. If no quote cannot be given, then the attribution should be removed.
I give one example here: The phrase 'oida oti ouden oida' 'I know that I know nothing' is attributed to Socrates. Looking up the original source, one finds:
So either Socrates never said "I know that I know nothing", or if he said it, it is not documented. He said something similar, though, in the context of a court hearing.
Andreas 01:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC) amended 03:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
And what is the semantic difference between 'oida oti ouden oida' and 'I do not know anything, do not think I do either.', absent the Greek for the second quote? Given that the second quote is a translation, I'd really like to see the original. I'm not saying that you are wrong, but the text (cite) might be nice. Jim62sch 02:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
My, my, all this fuss and furor over a worthless concept. Carrionluggage 02:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
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)