text:
Talk:Intelligent design

Shorten the SD
The WP:Short description should be improved. One, the overall article is about the creationist argument. With this in mind we can describe ID as an "argument" and thereby give the potential reader the essence of the topic. But two, more importantly, "pseudoscientific" adds unnecessary POV. Would we be happy with an article title of Pseudoscientific arguments about the creation of the universe? No. But we do have various articles in Category:Cosmogony and Category:Physical cosmology. Would any of the articles benefit from SDs that said "Scientific argument about such & such"? Again, no. Let's just say that Intelligent design is an argument and leave out the unnecessary "pseudoscientific" adjective. – S. Rich (talk) 01:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "'pseudoscientific' adds unnecessary POV". Can't see it myself. 'pseudoscientific' is used in the first sentence of the lede, so is clearly considered an integral NPOV element of the topic. As such, it merits inclusion in the SD; as WP:Short description says "These descriptions ... help users identify the desired article", so including 'pseudoscientific' functions to aid in identifying 'Intelligent design' as the article about the pseudoscientific argument. -- Jmc (talk) 01:44, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I observe that the Intelligent Design article on the simple English Wikipedia treats the subject drastically differently than this one and doesn't even mention pseudoscience. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a reliable source. But maybe someone should change the Intelligent Design article. I have experience there. Does one replace "pseudoscientific" by "stupid" or "wrong" to change it from English to Simple English? --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:21, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not a question of RS for either WP or Simple WP. (No matter what, the Simple ID article must be NPOV. And changes to the Simple article are best discussed there.) I "simply" ask that we remove the POV-laden "pseudoscientific" from the short description in this regular WP article. – S. Rich (talk) 05:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not a question of RS Yes it is. You were trying to change this Wikipedia article based on what another Wikipedia article says, so you were trying to use the other article as a source for this one. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:17, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

 * If something is science and looks like science, one does not need to mention that it is science. That is the reason why the "scientific" adjective is not used.
 * Pseudoscience is something that pretends to be science, so it looks like science but it is not science. That is the reason why the "pseudoscientific" adjective is used. --Hob Gadling (talk)
 * My concern is about the POV vs. NPOV tone of the SD. We can describe the article as "an argument about ...." and avoid saying it is "arcane", "former", "inaccurate", "irrelevant", "dismissed in scientific circles", "hogwash", etc. The WP:SDAVOID guidance says "avoid 'former', 'retired', 'late', 'defunct', 'closed', etc.." Removing "pseudo" helps us comply with this guidance.  – S. Rich (talk) 04:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it does not. Calling a pseudoscience "pseudoscience" is perfectly NPOV when reliable sources consistently call it pseudoscience. I think you need to actually read WP:NPOV instead of just saying it. Also WP:FRINGE, WP:PSCI and WP:FALSEBALANCE.
 * Also, the logic "the rules say we should avoid X, therefore we should avoid Y" leaves something to be desired. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:17, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If the words "pseudoscience" or "pseudoscientific" are to be replaced, I do appreciate Hob's suggestion to use the words "stupid" or "wrong" instead. - Roxy the dog 06:46, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @S. Rich You've failed to address the point I made in immediate response:
 * 'pseudoscientific' is used in the first sentence of the lede, so is clearly considered an integral NPOV element of the topic. As such, 'pseudoscientific' merits inclusion in the SD; as WP:Short description says "These descriptions ... help users identify the desired article", so including 'pseudoscientific' functions to aid in identifying 'Intelligent design' as the article about the pseudoscientific argument.

 * You don't seem to have any issue with 'pseudoscientific' being used in the article itself, so your objection to it in the SD seems perverse. --Jmc (talk) 07:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

 * User:Srich32977 Can you put the existing SD alongside something proposed ? I am doubtful you will make headway for WP:SDLENGTH, but a definite comparison might at least get a focus back to about being shorter.   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. The inclusion of the qualifier "pseudoscientific" is superfluous to the point that it reeks of bias.
 * I don't think it's a battle worth fighting.
 * Yes, the short description is… not short. Especially when you compare it to the length of the rest of the article. Further, some of its content is redundant with the body content.
 * But it's not just the first sentence that has a POV problem. The entire short description—nay, the whole article—is marred with bias to the point that it to me looks not salvageable. And even if it were, it seems that it's guarded by a group of ideologues: fanatics who will pile on their fallacious rhetoric until the hope is sucked dry from you by the tyranny of their majority. Emilimo (talk) 10:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yup, the tyranny of WP:BESTSOURCES. How sad! tgeorgescu (talk) 11:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Straw Man. I am not criticizing WP:BESTSOURCES. When I say tyranny of the majority (which I definitely feel is happening on a large scale around discussion of this topic) I'm criticizing use of specific rhetorical devices and fallacious reasoning such as (but not limited to) argumentum ad populum and secondary implications such as groupthink, overconfidence in conventional wisdom and secular orthodoxy, false sense of inerrancy, and myriad intellectual vices such as appeal to ridicule which you just used on me with your sarcasm.
 * I'm not without hypocrisy; I admit my previous comment used blatant ad hominem attack. But just because I indulged in intellectual vice for a moment doesn't invalidate my sentiment.
 * A new article need to be written about what ID really is at a fundamental level—a theory of the origin of life—outside of and disconnected from its social contexts. Emilimo (talk) 13:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It isn't a scientific theory. Not even a scientific hypothesis. Because nobody took care to formulate it as a cogent scientific hypothesis. Phillip E. Johnson died without knowing the hypothesis of intelligent design. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That sounds like an appeal to ignorance. The theory is not valid because there hasn't been a person who has put it in a form that acceptable to you and the consensus/majority? Who is the authority on what constistutes a "cogent scientific hypothesis"? Why would we need Phillip E. Johnson to come back to life and do it for us? How do you know one is not already out there? Emilimo (talk) 13:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait you got me on another red herring there; I never claimed it to be a scientific theory. Which is why I think there needs to be a page presenting it without any claims of it being a scientific theory, similar to the page on the Big Bang. Just because I am suggesting the theory—in and of itself—as not scientific does not mean that it is pseudoscience. On the contrary it would arguably call for it to be, by definition of pseudoscience, no longer labeled as pseudoscience. You don't see the Big Bang theory labeled as pseudoscience. As should be the case with ID. Emilimo (talk) 13:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Big Bang, despite your protestations, is a widely-accepted scientific theory. For the metaphysical correspondent of ID, see Teleological argument. That, my friend, is a bona fide philosophical argument, but alas it has nothing to do with science. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That sounds like an appeal to ignorance Oh, the irony. ID itself is one huge heap of appeal to ignorance ("I tried to find a way how evolution can make things like X, and I failed"; insert every biological feature for X); it does not have any actual content beyond that. And that is the very reason why ID is no scientific hypothesis. You are talking to people with lots of experience debating "Cdesign proponentsists", and every time one asks one of them for the theory of ID, one gets crickets.
 * How do you know one is not already out there? The burden of proof is on the person who claims that it exists. Bring it here, and everybody will be baffled, stunned, and surprised.
 * Independent of that, this is not a forum. Your claim of bias is commonplace for every article about any pseudoscience - see WP:YWAB - and does not impress anybody. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sources are sometimes bias as well. Given that it is a controversial topic we should add further in the article that "it is considered by most scientists a pseudoscientific argument" given the right sources, but not in the opening paragraph. Is like if someone made the opening paragraph of Gender pay gap to be "The gender pay gap or gender wage gap is the ALLEGEDLY difference between the remuneration for men and women who are working." - Barumbarumba (talk) 23:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The thing is, all pro-Intelligent Design sources are notoriously unreliable, and "unbiased sources" are invariably accused and denounced as being negatively biased due to accurately describing Intelligent Design as religiously-inspired, anti-science flimflam. Mr Fink (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with you. Since the professional editors of the Encyclopedia Britannica didn't consider it appropriate to apply the label "pseudoscientific" to ID theory, it seems reasonable to avoid that in order to preserve neutrality. The better approach would be to neutrally include the statement by the US National Academy of Science saying that it isn't a legitimate scientific theory. I would argue that the term 'pseudoscience' is appropriately applied to theories like Flat Earth. Because ID has support from a number of scientists with relevant educational backgrounds, I believe it is more accurately categorized as 'fringe science' or 'questionable science' prominent supporters of ID include: award winning chemist Dr. Henry F. Schaefer III, professor of biochemistry Dr. Michael Behe, and Microbiology professor Dr. Scott Minnich. Further, a 2018 Pew Poll of members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science found that 2% of members believed humans had always existed in their present form, and another 8% believed that human evolution was guided by a supreme being. [Elaborating on the Views of AAAS Scientists, Issue by Issue | Pew Research Center] BeLikeBritannica (talk) 20:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Read the FAQ. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Please align with reliable sources
https://www.britannica.com/topic/intelligent-design 174.62.129.125 (talk) 22:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100006119 174.62.129.125 (talk) 23:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

 * Please read FAQ at the top of the page. --McSly (talk) 23:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

 * Britannica does explain intelligent design, this is where it is explained in full detail: https://www.britannica.com/science/evolution-scientific-theory/Intelligent-design-and-its-critics tgeorgescu (talk) 23:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

 * user:tgeorgescu - that’s a good article, I particularly liked the mentions of Fisher or Hardy-Weinberg more than the focus on Paley and IC. But from the OP briefness I cannot tell what they meant by “align”.  Perhaps from the brevity they didn’t get very far in the details and are just talking the lead here versus how what they pointed to starts.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * My guess is that they are referring to the much more neutral tone of other encyclopedias. E.g. The lack of the term 'pseudoscience' in the linked articles. Similarly, Intelligent design - Citizendium does not make such a definitive conclusion. Stating much more objectively that "The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has concluded that, in its present form, ID cannot be regarded as scientific because the claims made by its proponents are not testable." BeLikeBritannica (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The difference is one of tone, not of meaning. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The meaning is different. Labeling ID as pseudoscience is a conclusion, not universally agreed, nor objectively measureable, nor even adequately supported by referenced expert opinions. Stating that the US National Academy of Sciences concluded that in it's present form ID cannot be regarded as scientific is a neutral objective statement of a fact. Nearly all statements from organizations rejecting ID don't use the perjorative term 'pseudoscience' BeLikeBritannica (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ID pretends it is scientific AND, therefore ID is pseudoscience. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

 * BeLikeBritannica, this is covered by the FAQ. The goal of the FAQ is to avoid wasting time on useless discussions, like this one. --McSly (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Intelligent_design
The second paragraph does not seem to fit the heading, afaict not legislation and not obviously anti-evolution. Should we move it or remove it? Also, first paragraph should have some decent cites, FA and all that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

 * Yes, this is a pretty unsatisfactory section. It makes only peripheral (uncited) reference to Intelligent Design. I'd be for its wholesale removal. -- Jmc (talk) 20:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And the first paragraph, which is under-cited, can be cited using the references in Anti-evolution legislation. Black Kite (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Pseudoscience? Creationism?
Sir Fred Hoyle, staunch lifelong atheist - "hard" atheist -in his Omni Lecture at the Royal Institution, London, January 12th, 1982, had this to say: “The difference between an intelligent ordering, whether of words, fruit boxes, amino acids, or the Rubik cube, and merely random shufflings can be fantastically large, even as large as a number that would fill the whole volume of Shakespeare’s plays with its zeros. So if one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure of order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of in pondering this issue over quite a long time seems to me to have anything like as high a possibility of being true.” 2601:404:CB83:D50:44C8:EE37:6741:1F40 (talk) 23:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

 * Please read the FAQ at the top of the page. You could also take a look at Argument from incredulity. --McSly (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:SOAPBOX--Mr Fink (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Also see Hoyle's fallacy. -- Jmc (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * And WP:RS and WP:OR. Your own thinking, as any other user's, isn't worth shit here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

 * I don't see a proposed edit in IP, but the FAQ does not include Hoyle since the article does not. Seems reasonable to discuss if Hoyle *should* be mentioned as a precursor in this article or at Specified complexity.   The article does mention Paley which is far distant past and not as direct a link nor related to the ID concepts expressed in this article.   I easily found reasonable cites in the history of ID that 'the term Intelligent design appears to have been coined from Hoyle and Horrigan', and a prominent criticism referring to specified complexity as a 'variant of Hoyle and Wickramasinghe's old claim' (about the probability of a tornado assembling a Concorde) -- so having a mention of the precursor and wikilink to Junkyard tornado seems reasonable.   But p-value use of probability common in scientific studies (although commonly problematic) is more the see-also wikilink than Argument from incredulity since presenting details of method and calculation is not properly termed "incredulity".   So -- mention Hoyle here, in SC, or not at all ????  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's important not to conflate the argument from design with intelligent design. The argument from design posits that only an intelligence could have created the universe. Intelligent design OTOH posits that the argument from design is a scientific one and also that it can be bolstered through scientific research.
 * So Hoyle did not endorse ID. TFD (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * TFD - That the article does conflate the argument from design with intelligent design is a different topic than the question of whether to mention Fred Hoyle as a precursor - perhaps in the "Origin of the concept" or the "Fine-tuned universe" sections. And to the contrary, Hoyle is listed as a supporter of ID -- though again the question was whether to note him as a precursor, either here or at Specified complexity.  To be precise the 'support' means as a precursor he preceded the Intelligent design movement by a few years with his own ideas of life on Earth came from outer space, the argument of improbability and use of Information theory (similar to Specified complexity), his creating the Junkyard tornado metaphor, plus remarks about Fine-tuned universe, etcetera.  His 1983 book The Intelligent Universe "Examines the origins of life on earth, analyzes the Darwinian theory of evolution, and argues that life is the result of a deliberate plan."  The 'support' does not mean he was a member of Discovery institute and as far as I've googled he made no comment at all about the IDM or court case -- at least nothing as famous as his originating the above concepts.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's more accurate to say that ID advocates claim him as a precursor. TFD (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * TFD - so to check, are you answering the question with a yes, that the article mention Hoyle and phrase it 'ID advocates claim him as a precursor' ?  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No, not unless reliable secondary sources routinely mention that ID supporters claim him as a forerunner. And even if they do, it doesn't give us licence to copy the quote above. The purpose of the article is to describe ID based on how it is reported in reliable sources, not to engage in advocating it. TFD (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * TFD - understood, although I hope you mean Third-party sources and WP:WEIGHT. The ID proponents are obviously RS for what ID proponents say, as 'ID advocates claim him as a precursor' is objective fact.  Second-party would be anti-ID such as NCSE and hence not reliable for what ID claims nor for WP:WEIGHT.  Third-party would be outside reporting such as  USnews.com - though I only see they reporting it as fact, not ‘ID advocates claim’ e.g.
 * The term "intelligent design" appears to have been coined in its contemporary scientific usage by the atheist cosmologist Dr. Fred Hoyle, who in 1982 argued that "if one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure of order must be the outcome of intelligent design." The term "intelligent design" was also used by non-scientist James E. Horigan in his 1979 book Chance or Design? where Horigan used the term "intelligent design" and framed his argument as an empirical one, "without resort to biblical or other religious references," and without investigating questions about "ultimate purpose." Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * To assert that USnews.com is reporting it as fact seems a claim too far. It appears in a guest blog by a creationist who begins his post thus: "Most Darwinists involved in the public debate today have one, and only one goal: To stifle free debate on this subject and thereby discourage you, the public, from scrutinizing the scientific evidence for yourself." -- Jmc (talk) 18:44, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Jmc well, among all the googles I had missed that header -- so the USnews.com quote is showing one example of ID advocates saying Hoyle was a precursor and their mentioning the objective fact that "intelligent design" was a term Hoyle used a few years before.  Anyway  -- do you have a position about the question of how or if to mention Hoyle in article ?   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * ID proponents are not RS for what ID proponents say, because each one is expressing his own opinion, not speaking as a spokesman for the movement.
 * The fact that Fred Hoyle put the words intelligent and design together in the 1960s doesn't mean he was advocating a belief system that developed decades later.
 * I don't know why you keep pushing this. Of course some things we cannot explain could be caused by ghosts. But that's beyond the realm of scientific enquiry. TFD (talk) 06:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * TFD Clearly what was published and that IDM mentions Hoyle of the 1980s is objective fact, the question was how or if to mention Hoyle as a precursor in article, which you have already responded to. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Mark, you seem to be trolling and/or trying to synthesise an argument using primary or unreliable sources. Don't. .. dave souza, talk 22:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * dave souza Hi Dave. I am asking a simple and obvious question — taking note of the IP (which indeed is objective fact and appears fairly commonly mentioned in IDM) to ask if Hoyle should be mentioned as a precursor in this article or at Specified complexity.  I would prefer if a simple edit question could be easier with simple edit answers, but I suppose any controversial topic has this kind of difficulty of lots of off-question replies.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Per weight, Hoyle only belongs in the article if mentioned in reliable secondary sources about ID. As WP:FRINGE says, "Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles."
 * ID proponents would obviously have us believe that Hoyle endorsed their views. If he did, it would give them respectability. We would need a reliable secondary source to comment on that. TFD (talk) 16:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

An article unworthy of Wikipedia.
The article, as currently conceived, exhibits a significant bias aimed at discrediting the Intelligent Design theory rather than offering a comprehensive explanation of its principles. While it's reasonable for any theory to include a section critiquing it and presenting opposing viewpoints, the article appears more focused on criticizing Intelligent Design rather than providing an impartial overview of it. It appears that any theory suggesting an alternative perspective to the established norms of scientific materialism is met with apprehension by certain Wikipedia users. There is nothing more unscientific than consensus ;-) Sergeant Batou (talk) 09:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

 * We don't do impartial on this website per the WP:NPOV-policy. It may seem strange, but it's how it is. WP favors the mainstream scientific view, so we're partial in a lot of places. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * See also WP:FALSEBALANCE. In every written discussion, ID proponents fail miserably against science proponents. All their reasoning is crap. They have nothing, not even a theory. This is reflected in reliable sources, and that is what we report. If you read only what IP proponents say, you will obviously have a distorted view at odds with reality, at odds with reliable sources and at odds with the Wikipedia article, and you will attribute "bias" to the article. You should read the sources linked in the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia favors the mainstream scientific view, so we're partial in a lot of places" This, my dear wikipedian, is perhaps the most unscientific thing imaginable, and history provides us with countless examples; science may establish theories as certain and gain massive support from the scientific community, only to later dismantle them. My point here is why some entries on Wikipedia seem to receive such radically different treatment in tone and form depending on their content. It doesn't seem fair to me... Sergeant Batou (talk) 13:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Anybody who believes that ID is science has no business telling others about what is scientific and what is not.
 * Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. Reliable sources say ID is pseudoscience. End of story. Bye. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that sets science apart from religion, science can change it's mind, annoying politicians and other people. If ID ideas get the post 1950 Alfred Wegener treatment at some point, we'll deal with that when it happens. As a Swedish comedian once said, "Oh well, I never did expect to be appreciated during my own lifetime anyway. But other times will come!" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "your reasoning is crap" "End of story. Bye" Please refrain from using overly sophisticated arguments that nearly persuade! If ID is as absurd and surreal as the flat earth theory, I fail to comprehend the aggression towards it. it's simply a wild notion! Who cares, then? Or perhaps, radically different ideas from our own simply evoke FEAR? :) Sergeant Batou (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Intelligent Design is as absurd and surreal as the Flat Earth theory because no Intelligent Design proponents have ever bothered to demonstrate how saying "DESIGNERDIDIT" is supposed to be science. In fact, it's thoroughly documented that its creators, the Cdesign Proponentsists at the Discovery Institute, only devised Intelligent Design as an excuse to sneak in Young Earth Creationist anti-science propaganda into science classrooms with a minimum of legal fuss.  Furthermore, please remember that Wikipedia talkpages are for discussing actionable requests for improving articles, and are WP:NOTAFORUM nor WP:SOAPBOX from which to scold and whine about how Wikipedia is so evil for not kissing the ring or tuchas of your favorite Pseudoscience for Jesus. Mr Fink (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should remember what talk pages are for. They aren't intended for you to use them to give your personal opinions on ID, insult other editor's religious beliefs or generally act condescending to someone who hasn't been discourteous to you. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed, though it is a waste of everyone's time arguing that ID is not a pseudoscientific theory, because it clearly is. Black Kite (talk) 21:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Sergeant Batou: "... science may establish theories as certain and gain massive support from the scientific community, only to later dismantle them." Yes, that's the nature of science, and Wikipedia goes along with it, always open to recording the current state of scientific knowledge. And in the current state of scientific knowledge, intelligent design is a pseudoscience. -- Jmc (talk) 04:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

 * I am quite surprised, truthfully, by all the interesting responses that my comment has sparked – some quite intriguing, and others unfortunately overly condescending and openly aggressive. But well, there have always been different ways and means of debating, and sometimes fanaticism and visceral reactions overshadow constructive exchanges of opinions. That being said, I believe there is some confusion regarding my viewpoint: I neither defend nor believe in Intelligent Design. My text refers to the fact that the way it is currently portrayed on Wikipedia seems more like a biased opinion piece than a neutral article in a supposedly serious encyclopedia. An encyclopedic article should present facts objectively, and it is up to the reader to determine through reasoning and intellectual evaluation whether it is a serious theory, pseudoscience, or utter madness. However, an article should not openly begin with terms that clearly sway the reader's opinions in one direction or another. In this case, the entry in the Encyclopedia Britannica, while equally critical of the movement, shows enough intellectual respect for the reader to define it as an "Argument" and not a "Pseudoscience" Honestly, I entered Wikipedia to look up the concept because I had read it mentioned in an article out of sheer curiosity. But seeing the belligerence, dogmatism, and lack of manners with which I have been treated, I now have a thousand times more interest in the theory :) Sergeant Batou (talk) 11:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * See https://www.britannica.com/science/evolution-scientific-theory/Intelligent-design-and-its-critics#ref247559 tgeorgescu (talk) 11:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps some of the archived discussions will interest you as well: Britannica, though a little shorter, does use different words: "Meanwhile, intelligent design appeared incapable of generating a scientific research program, which inevitably broadened the gap between it and the established norms of science." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for providing the sources; I intend to read them thoroughly and engage in the intellectual exercise of forming my own conclusions based on data, arguments, and humility. Minds are not swayed by condescension and hostility, but rather by thoughtful consideration. I believe Wikipedia entries would maintain greater intellectual honesty and fairness if they employed neutral terms such as "argument" or "theory," rather than the inherently negative term "pseudoscience," which is often chosen with bias. This marks the conclusion of my participation in this conversation, as I wish to prevent it from devolving into a forum-like exchange. I extend my gratitude to those who contributed meaningful arguments and sources, and express my deepest disdain for those who resort to digital barbarism (they know who they are). Kind regards. Sergeant Batou (talk) 11:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * And if you wish to comment further on this talkpage, consider "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Intelligent design article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." Next time, try to suggest a specific change to the article, based on on-topic WP:RS. Or be WP:BOLD and see what happens. If you want to suggest changes to WP:NPOV, that page has a talkpage too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You should also remember to remind WP:PA users when they use expressions as constructive as "ring or tuchas of your favorite Pseudoscience for Jesus," "All their reasoning is crap," or "End of story. Bye," if I may add my two cents :) Sergeant Batou (talk) 12:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Those are not PAs because they are not about people. They are about the quality of reasoning. Stop misusing this page as a forum. I think we can close this waste of spacetime. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You've consistently attempted to silence me from our very first interaction, lacking even basic courtesy and resorting to aggressive and highly unpleasant behavior. It's regrettable that expressing a calmly and politely held opinion is met with such extreme hostility from you, a tone I've noticed you directed towards anyone not aligned with your intellectual views.I also find it amusing how a common tactic on the talk page (just take a look at the history) is to engage in lengthy debates, only to quickly resort to the trump card of 'this is not a forum' when an idea doesn't sit well. Anyway, from this point on, it makes no sense to continue a conversation that you've tainted with hostility from the start. Best regards to all Wikipedians Sergeant Batou (talk) 13:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sergeant, if you think that Hob violated the Civility guideline, you may need to consider a Dispute resolution request. Dimadick (talk) 14:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Everyone should remember that Intelligent Design, in its current iteration, did not arise in a vacuum. The context here, as laid out in the article, is an attempt to shoehorn divine creation into US public school science classes, disingenuously framing ID as an alternative scientific idea while concealing its religious basis, as litigated in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District in 2005, with the judge describing the school board's action in that case as breathtakingly inane.

Anyone opening a discussion on this talk page using language like "unworthy" and "significant bias" may expect vigorous pushback. Just plain Bill (talk) 13:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

 * I just came across this page and was surprised at the incompleteness of the content as well as some of the rationale used throughout to make definitive statements which are clearly biased opinions. First and foremost, the source references used for anything related to Intelligent Design are 2008 or earlier. There has been a bit of progress in this field in 15+ years and this page should represent that if trying to be honest (otherwise some might think this lack of update is for other reasons). You can no longer call ID "pseudoscience" based on the number of books and scientific articles that have been published since 2008 by plenty of PHDs from every field of science. ID is NOT creationism since at it's core it is using scientific methods, data, and experiments to demonstrate that there is evidence in nature that points to some intelligence as a casual power as opposed to purely random gradual mutations over long periods of time (ID does NOT identify the intelligence in question). ID uses the same method of historical scientific reasoning as Darwin did, so if one is pseudoscience, they both are. Also, ID did not arise "to shoehorn creation into US public school classes" at all since the creators of the movement did not start or encourage what happen in the schools in Dover, PA (it's great that we had a Judge to tell us what qualifies as science and what does not). Science should be the search for TRUTH using competing theories and this evolves over time the more we know (it is NOT static consensus by a few). Please realize that religion and science are NOT mutually exclusive since in the end, all world views believe in something outside of space, material, and time (i.e., pre-big bang). ID makes the scientific case for a designing intelligence. Scientific materialism (i.e., atheism) tries to makes the case for the beginning of the universe, first life (abiogenesis), and Darwin's common descent, but there is plenty of room for other theories in these areas at the present time based on their blatant weaknesses. Suggest the authors of this article actually catch up on the latest in ID and revise the article from a position of knowledge versus planned ignorance (and take a look at Günter Bechly's story in the process). T NorthStar (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You may or may not find something that interests you at Talk:Intelligent design/FAQ. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link to that page. Actually, that FAQ essentially validates all of my points. This Wikipedia article essentially stopped doing real revisions to the page for anything on the side of ID in 2008. Using the judges ruling in Kitzmiller from 2005 based on words from the opposing sides legal brief can hardly be the final word. Stating "a majority of scientists" is consensus-based scientism, not true science. There are now over 200 peer-reviewed and mainstream scientific publications supporting Intelligent Design (see ) in addition to many published books from PhDs in Mathematics, Biology, Chemistry, Astrophysics, Paleontology, etc. It might be time to revise the FAQ and the Article if the objective is to be unbiased. T NorthStar (talk) 00:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * From the Introduction to the cited Discovery Institute list of publications supporting ID:
 * "Collectively, this research is converging on a consensus: many complex features of life and the universe cannot arise by unguided processes (e.g., Darwinian evolution), but indicate an intelligent cause."
 * Consensus? Sounds like scientism, not true science, to me.
 * -- Jmc (talk) 01:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The Discovery Center is an unreliable source notorious for its anti-science bias. Furthermore, talkpages are WP:NOTAFORUM. Mr Fink (talk) 01:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I see, so since the list of scientific publications is listed on the Discovery Center site, all of those scientific publications are now unreliable sources as well? Suggest that the authors of this page actually look at the references and progress made in this area before dismissing and clinging to blanket statements. Answer #2 on the Talk FAQ page no longer applies as there is more being tested and predicted in ID today than can be said of neo-Darwinian Evolution theory. There is only so much that can be tested and predicted in regards to historical science anyway but that applies to both theories equally and one is making continuous progress while the gaps in the other continues to widen (fossil record, complexity of simplest cell, biological information, bacteria evolution studies, etc.). Can you really hold to this article being from a Neutral Point of View if it is 15+ years out of date? T NorthStar (talk) 13:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Certainly, a list published by The Discovery Institute of what they say are "peer reviewed scientific publications in support of ID" is of absolutely no use whatsoever. Even if they are peer-reviewed (and peer-reviewed in a manner which would make them reliable), what is their link to ID?  Which part of ID do they "support"?  Anyway, this doesn't matter because, I can see straight away that a very large number of those "peer-reviewed scientific publications" originate from BIO-complexity, which is run by the Biologic Institute.  As its article says, the BI was "created to give the organization a facade of conducting biological research with the aim of producing experimental evidence of intelligent design creationism, funded by the Discovery Institute".  On this basis, I would assume that the other articles in the DI's list are equally worthless. Black Kite (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, so the list "is of absolutely no use whatsoever" because ~ 40 of the 200+ references are from one source that you distrust? There are a lot of "assumptions" being made here without anyone actually looking at details of the work being done by PhDs from all fields of Science and Math. But people that come to this page or Wikipedia in general are supposed to believe it is neutral. Got it. T NorthStar (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No, let's be clear about this. If I came to you and said "here is £200 in dollar bills", and the first 40 you checked were all fakes, would you trust the provenance of the other 160? Let's face it, The Discovery Institute has a history of doing this (see talk page archives ad nauseam) so it is unsurprising that in a list of "200 peer reviewed scientific publications", one can write off 40+ of them as neither peer-reviewed nor scientific with a bare 5 minutes research.  We haven't even started on the others, but per the dollar bill analogy I would be surprised if any of them were scientifically and properly peer-reviewed and were also "in support of Intelligent Design". Black Kite (talk) 14:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * For starters, your insistence on clinging the false equivalency logical fallacy is noted, especially considering the origin of your claim, an anti-science propaganda mill, and how all of the alleged 200+ papers are either irrelevant, or misinterpreted, all ignoring the output of pro-science, pro-evolution peer-reviewed research is greater by several orders of magnitude. Mr Fink (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There has been a bit of progress in this field Do they have a theory of ID now? It was always sorely missed.
 * The progress is probably just "we found more things we cannot explain." --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You should actually catch up on the last 15+ years for yourself and understand how it should impact the article to remain objective. There are plenty of things today that scientists "cannot explain" including the big bang, fine tuning of the universe for life, abiogenesis (first life), the human mind/consciousness, dark matter/energy, etc. ID uses all fields of science and math to prove a casual agent for some of these unknowns. Defining "science" as requiring "material" is a non-sequitur since we know there are things (mind, math, information, etc.) and times (pre-Big Bang) that are/were not material. I will end it there as I know this page is not a forum but the article should be revised and updated to be remotely considered neutral. T NorthStar (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If this thread is just going to be yet another forum thread for more angry whining about how this page isn't pro-Intelligent Design propaganda, can we just hat it?--Mr Fink (talk) 13:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Intelligent design


text:
Integrin

Integrins are transmembrane receptors that help cell-cell and cell-extracellular matrix (ECM) adhesion. Upon ligand binding, integrins activate signal transduction pathways that mediate cellular signals such as regulation of the cell cycle, organization of the intracellular cytoskeleton, and movement of new receptors to the cell membrane. The presence of integrins allows rapid and flexible responses to events at the cell surface (e.g. signal platelets to initiate an interaction with coagulation factors).

Several types of integrins exist, and one cell generally has multiple different types on its surface. Integrins are found in all animals while integrin-like receptors are found in plant cells.

Integrins work alongside other proteins such as cadherins, the immunoglobulin superfamily cell adhesion molecules, selectins and syndecans, to mediate cell–cell and cell–matrix interaction. Ligands for integrins include fibronectin, vitronectin, collagen and laminin.

Structure
Integrins are obligate heterodimers composed of α and β subunits. Several genes code for multiple isoforms of these subunits, which gives rise to an array of unique integrins with varied activity. In mammals, integrins are assembled from eighteen α and eight β subunits, in Drosophila five α and two β subunits, and in Caenorhabditis nematodes two α subunits and one β subunit. The α and β subunits are both class I transmembrane proteins, so each penetrates the plasma membrane once, and can possess several cytoplasmic domains.

Variants of some subunits are formed by differential RNA splicing; for example, four variants of the beta-1 subunit exist. Through different combinations of the α and β subunits, 24 unique mammalian integrins are generated, excluding splice- and glycosylation variants.

Integrin subunits span the cell membrane and have short cytoplasmic domains of 40–70 amino acids. The exception is the beta-4 subunit, which has a cytoplasmic domain of 1,088 amino acids, one of the largest of any membrane protein. Outside the cell membrane, the α and β chains lie close together along a length of about 23 nm; the final 5 nm N-termini of each chain forms a ligand-binding region for the ECM. They have been compared to lobster claws, although they don't actually "pinch" their ligand, they chemically interact with it at the insides of the "tips" of their "pinchers".

The molecular mass of the integrin subunits can vary from 90 kDa to 160 kDa. Beta subunits have four cysteine-rich repeated sequences. Both α and β subunits bind several divalent cations. The role of divalent cations in the α subunit is unknown, but may stabilize the folds of the protein. The cations in the β subunits are more interesting: they are directly involved in coordinating at least some of the ligands that integrins bind.

Integrins can be categorized in multiple ways. For example, some α chains have an additional structural element (or "domain") inserted toward the N-terminal, the alpha-A domain (so called because it has a similar structure to the A-domains found in the protein von Willebrand factor; it is also termed the α-I domain). Integrins carrying this domain either bind to collagens (e.g. integrins α1 β1, and α2 β1), or act as cell-cell adhesion molecules (integrins of the β2 family). This α-I domain is the binding site for ligands of such integrins. Those integrins that don't carry this inserted domain also have an A-domain in their ligand binding site, but this A-domain is found on the β subunit.

In both cases, the A-domains carry up to three divalent cation binding sites. One is permanently occupied in physiological concentrations of divalent cations, and carries either a calcium or magnesium ion, the principal divalent cations in blood at median concentrations of 1.4 mM (calcium) and 0.8 mM (magnesium). The other two sites become occupied by cations when ligands bind—at least for those ligands involving an acidic amino acid in their interaction sites. An acidic amino acid features in the integrin-interaction site of many ECM proteins, for example as part of the amino acid sequence Arginine-Glycine-Aspartic acid ("RGD" in the one-letter amino acid code).

Structure
Despite many years of effort, discovering the high-resolution structure of integrins proved to be challenging, as membrane proteins are classically difficult to purify, and as integrins are large, complex and highly glycosylated with many sugar 'trees' attached to them. Low-resolution images of detergent extracts of intact integrin GPIIbIIIa, obtained using electron microscopy, and even data from indirect techniques that investigate the solution properties of integrins using ultracentrifugation and light scattering, were combined with fragmentary high-resolution crystallographic or NMR data from single or paired domains of single integrin chains, and molecular models postulated for the rest of the chains.

The X-ray crystal structure obtained for the complete extracellular region of one integrin, αvβ3, shows the molecule to be folded into an inverted V-shape that potentially brings the ligand-binding sites close to the cell membrane. Perhaps more importantly, the crystal structure was also obtained for the same integrin bound to a small ligand containing the RGD-sequence, the drug cilengitide. As detailed above, this finally revealed why divalent cations (in the A-domains) are critical for RGD-ligand binding to integrins. The interaction of such sequences with integrins is believed to be a primary switch by which ECM exerts its effects on cell behaviour.

The structure poses many questions, especially regarding ligand binding and signal transduction. The ligand binding site is directed towards the C-terminal of the integrin, the region where the molecule emerges from the cell membrane. If it emerges orthogonally from the membrane, the ligand binding site would apparently be obstructed, especially as integrin ligands are typically massive and well cross-linked components of the ECM. In fact, little is known about the angle that membrane proteins subtend to the plane of the membrane; this is a problem difficult to address with available technologies. The default assumption is that they emerge rather like little lollipops, but there is little evidence for this. The integrin structure has drawn attention to this problem, which may have general implications for how membrane proteins work. It appears that the integrin transmembrane helices are tilted (see "Activation" below), which hints that the extracellular chains may also not be orthogonal with respect to the membrane surface.

Although the crystal structure changed surprisingly little after binding to cilengitide, the current hypothesis is that integrin function involves changes in shape to move the ligand-binding site into a more accessible position, away from the cell surface, and this shape change also triggers intracellular signaling. There is a wide body of cell-biological and biochemical literature that supports this view. Perhaps the most convincing evidence involves the use of antibodies that only recognize integrins when they have bound to their ligands, or are activated. As the "footprint" that an antibody makes on its binding target is roughly a circle about 3 nm in diameter, the resolution of this technique is low. Nevertheless, these so-called LIBS (Ligand-Induced-Binding-Sites) antibodies unequivocally show that dramatic changes in integrin shape routinely occur. However, how the changes detected with antibodies look on the structure is still unknown.

Activation
When released into the cell membrane, newly synthesized integrin dimers are speculated to be found in the same "bent" conformation revealed by the structural studies described above. One school of thought claims that this bent form prevents them from interacting with their ligands, although bent forms can predominate in high-resolution EM structures of integrin bound to an ECM ligand. Therefore, at least in biochemical experiments, integrin dimers must apparently not be 'unbent' in order to prime them and allow their binding to the ECM. In cells, the priming is accomplished by a protein talin, which binds to the β tail of the integrin dimer and changes its conformation. The α and β integrin chains are both class-I transmembrane proteins: they pass the plasma membrane as single transmembrane alpha-helices. Unfortunately, the helices are too long, and recent studies suggest that, for integrin gpIIbIIIa, they are tilted with respect both to one another and to the plane of the membrane. Talin binding alters the angle of tilt of the β3 chain transmembrane helix in model systems and this may reflect a stage in the process of inside-out signalling which primes integrins. Moreover, talin proteins are able to dimerize and thus are thought to intervene in the clustering of integrin dimers which leads to the formation of a focal adhesion. Recently, the Kindlin-1 and Kindlin-2 proteins have also been found to interact with integrin and activate it.

Function
Integrins have two main functions, attachment of the cells to the ECM and signal transduction from the ECM to the cells. They are also involved in a wide range of other biological activities, including extravasation, cell-to-cell adhesion, cell migration, and as receptors for certain viruses, such as adenovirus, echovirus, hantavirus, foot-and-mouth disease, polio virus and other viruses. Recently, the importance of integrins in the progress of autoimmune disorders is also gaining attention of the scientists. These mechanoreceptors seem to regulate autoimmunity by dictating various intracellular pathways to control immune cell adhesion to endothelial cell layers followed by their trans-migration. This process might or might not be dependent on the sheer force faced by the extracellular parts of different integrins.

A prominent function of the integrins is seen in the molecule GpIIb/IIIa, an integrin on the surface of blood platelets (thrombocytes) responsible for attachment to fibrin within a developing blood clot. This molecule dramatically increases its binding affinity for fibrin/fibrinogen through association of platelets with exposed collagens in the wound site. Upon association of platelets with collagen, GPIIb/IIIa changes shape, allowing it to bind to fibrin and other blood components to form the clot matrix and stop blood loss.

Attachment of cell to the ECM
Integrins couple the cell-extracellular matrix (ECM) outside a cell to the cytoskeleton (in particular, the microfilaments) inside the cell. Which ligand in the ECM the integrin can bind to is defined by which α and β subunits the integrin is made of. Among the ligands of integrins are fibronectin, vitronectin, collagen, and laminin. The connection between the cell and the ECM may help the cell to endure pulling forces without being ripped out of the ECM. The ability of a cell to create this kind of bond is also of vital importance in ontogeny.

Cell attachment to the ECM is a basic requirement to build a multicellular organism. Integrins are not simply hooks, but give the cell critical signals about the nature of its surroundings. Together with signals arising from receptors for soluble growth factors like VEGF, EGF, and many others, they enforce a cellular decision on what biological action to take, be it attachment, movement, death, or differentiation. Thus integrins lie at the heart of many cellular biological processes. The attachment of the cell takes place through formation of cell adhesion complexes, which consist of integrins and many cytoplasmic proteins, such as talin, vinculin, paxillin, and alpha-actinin. These act by regulating kinases such as FAK (focal adhesion kinase) and Src kinase family members to phosphorylate substrates such as p130CAS thereby recruiting signaling adaptors such as CRK. These adhesion complexes attach to the actin cytoskeleton. The integrins thus serve to link two networks across the plasma membrane: the extracellular ECM and the intracellular actin filamentous system. Integrin α6β4 is an exception: it links to the keratin intermediate filament system in epithelial cells.

Focal adhesions are large molecular complexes, which are generated following interaction of integrins with ECM, then their clustering. The clusters likely provide sufficient intracellular binding sites to permit the formation of stable signaling complexes on the cytoplasmic side of the cell membrane. So the focal adhesions contain integrin ligand, integrin molecule, and associate plaque proteins. Binding is propelled by changes in free energy. As previously stated, these complexes connect the extracellular matrix to actin bundles. Cryo-electron tomography reveals that the adhesion contains particles on the cell membrane with diameter of 25 +/- 5 nm and spaced at approximately 45 nm. Treatment with Rho-kinase inhibitor Y-27632 reduces the size of the particle, and it is extremely mechanosensitive.

One important function of integrins on cells in tissue culture is their role in cell migration. Cells adhere to a substrate through their integrins. During movement, the cell makes new attachments to the substrate at its front and concurrently releases those at its rear. When released from the substrate, integrin molecules are taken back into the cell by endocytosis; they are transported through the cell to its front by the endocytic cycle, where they are added back to the surface. In this way they are cycled for reuse, enabling the cell to make fresh attachments at its leading front. The cycle of integrin endocytosis and recycling back to the cell surface is important also for not migrating cells and during animal development.

Signal transduction
Integrins play an important role in cell signaling by modulating the cell signaling pathways of transmembrane protein kinases such as receptor tyrosine kinases (RTK). While the interaction between integrin and receptor tyrosine kinases originally was thought of as uni-directional and supportive, recent studies indicate that integrins have additional, multi-faceted roles in cell signaling. Integrins can regulate the receptor tyrosine kinase signaling by recruiting specific adaptors to the plasma membrane. For example, β1c integrin recruits Gab1/Shp2 and presents Shp2 to IGF1R, resulting in dephosphorylation of the receptor. In a reverse direction, when a receptor tyrosine kinase is activated, integrins co-localise at focal adhesion with the receptor tyrosine kinases and their associated signaling molecules.

The repertoire of integrins expressed on a particular cell can specify the signaling pathway due to the differential binding affinity of ECM ligands for the integrins. The tissue stiffness and matrix composition can initiate specific signaling pathways regulating cell behavior. Clustering and activation of the integrins/actin complexes strengthen the focal adhesion interaction and initiate the framework for cell signaling through assembly of adhesomes.

Depending on the integrin's regulatory impact on specific receptor tyrosine kinases, the cell can experience:
 * cell growth
 * cell division
 * cell survival
 * cellular differentiation
 * apoptosis (programmed cell death)

Knowledge of the relationship between integrins and receptor tyrosine kinase has laid a foundation for new approaches to cancer therapy. Specifically, targeting integrins associated with RTKs is an emerging approach for inhibiting angiogenesis.

Integrins and nerve repair
Integrins have an important function in neuroregeneration after injury of the peripheral nervous system (PNS). Integrins are present at the growth cone of damaged PNS neurons and attach to ligands in the ECM to promote axon regeneration. It is unclear whether integrins can promote axon regeneration in the adult central nervous system (CNS). There are two obstacles that prevent integrin-mediated regeneration in the CNS: 1) integrins are not localised in the axon of most adult CNS neurons and 2) integrins become inactivated by molecules in the scar tissue after injury.

Vertebrate integrins
The following are 16 of the ~24 integrins found in vertebrates:

Beta-1 integrins interact with many alpha integrin chains. Gene knockouts of integrins in mice are not always lethal, which suggests that during embryonal development, one integrin may substitute its function for another in order to allow survival. Some integrins are on the cell surface in an inactive state, and can be rapidly primed, or put into a state capable of binding their ligands, by cytokines. Integrins can assume several different well-defined shapes or "conformational states". Once primed, the conformational state changes to stimulate ligand binding, which then activates the receptors — also by inducing a shape change — to trigger outside-in signal transduction.

title: Integrin


text:
Ion channel

Ion channels are pore-forming membrane proteins that allow ions to pass through the channel pore. Their functions include establishing a resting membrane potential, shaping action potentials and other electrical signals by gating the flow of ions across the cell membrane, controlling the flow of ions across secretory and epithelial cells, and regulating cell volume. Ion channels are present in the membranes of all cells. Ion channels are one of the two classes of ionophoric proteins, the other being ion transporters.

The study of ion channels often involves biophysics, electrophysiology, and pharmacology, while using techniques including voltage clamp, patch clamp, immunohistochemistry, X-ray crystallography, fluoroscopy, and RT-PCR. Their classification as molecules is referred to as channelomics.

Basic features
There are two distinctive features of ion channels that differentiate them from other types of ion transporter proteins: Ion channels are located within the membrane of all excitable cells, and of many intracellular organelles. They are often described as narrow, water-filled tunnels that allow only ions of a certain size and/or charge to pass through. This characteristic is called selective permeability. The archetypal channel pore is just one or two atoms wide at its narrowest point and is selective for specific species of ion, such as sodium or potassium. However, some channels may be permeable to the passage of more than one type of ion, typically sharing a common charge: positive (cations) or negative (anions). Ions often move through the segments of the channel pore in a single file nearly as quickly as the ions move through the free solution. In many ion channels, passage through the pore is governed by a "gate", which may be opened or closed in response to chemical or electrical signals, temperature, or mechanical force.
 * 1) The rate of ion transport through the channel is very high (often 106 ions per second or greater).
 * 2) Ions pass through channels down their electrochemical gradient, which is a function of ion concentration and membrane potential, "downhill", without the input (or help) of metabolic energy (e.g. ATP, co-transport mechanisms, or active transport mechanisms).

Ion channels are integral membrane proteins, typically formed as assemblies of several individual proteins. Such "multi-subunit" assemblies usually involve a circular arrangement of identical or homologous proteins closely packed around a water-filled pore through the plane of the membrane or lipid bilayer. For most voltage-gated ion channels, the pore-forming subunit(s) are called the α subunit, while the auxiliary subunits are denoted β, γ, and so on.

Biological role
Because channels underlie the nerve impulse and because "transmitter-activated" channels mediate conduction across the synapses, channels are especially prominent components of the nervous system. Indeed, numerous toxins that organisms have evolved for shutting down the nervous systems of predators and prey (e.g., the venoms produced by spiders, scorpions, snakes, fish, bees, sea snails, and others) work by modulating ion channel conductance and/or kinetics. In addition, ion channels are key components in a wide variety of biological processes that involve rapid changes in cells, such as cardiac, skeletal, and smooth muscle contraction, epithelial transport of nutrients and ions, T-cell activation, and pancreatic beta-cell insulin release. In the search for new drugs, ion channels are a frequent target.

Diversity
There are over 300 types of ion channels just in the cells of the inner ear. Ion channels may be classified by the nature of their gating, the species of ions passing through those gates, the number of gates (pores), and localization of proteins.

Further heterogeneity of ion channels arises when channels with different constitutive subunits give rise to a specific kind of current. Absence or mutation of one or more of the contributing types of channel subunits can result in loss of function and, potentially, underlie neurologic diseases.

Classification by gating
Ion channels may be classified by gating, i.e. what opens and closes the channels. For example, voltage-gated ion channels open or close depending on the voltage gradient across the plasma membrane, while ligand-gated ion channels open or close depending on binding of ligands to the channel.

Voltage-gated
Voltage-gated ion channels open and close in response to membrane potential.

 * Voltage-gated sodium channels: This family contains at least 9 members and is largely responsible for action potential creation and propagation. The pore-forming α subunits are very large (up to 4,000 amino acids) and consist of four homologous repeat domains (I-IV) each comprising six transmembrane segments (S1-S6) for a total of 24 transmembrane segments. The members of this family also coassemble with auxiliary β subunits, each spanning the membrane once. Both α and β subunits are extensively glycosylated.
 * Voltage-gated calcium channels: This family contains 10 members, though these are known to coassemble with α2δ, β, and γ subunits. These channels play an important role in both linking muscle excitation with contraction as well as neuronal excitation with transmitter release. The α subunits have an overall structural resemblance to those of the sodium channels and are equally large.
 * Cation channels of sperm: This small family of channels, normally referred to as Catsper channels, is related to the two-pore channels and distantly related to TRP channels.
 * Voltage-gated potassium channels (KV): This family contains almost 40 members, which are further divided into 12 subfamilies. These channels are known mainly for their role in repolarizing the cell membrane following action potentials. The α subunits have six transmembrane segments, homologous to a single domain of the sodium channels.  Correspondingly, they assemble as tetramers to produce a functioning channel.
 * Some transient receptor potential channels: This group of channels, normally referred to simply as TRP channels, is named after their role in Drosophila phototransduction. This family, containing at least 28 members, is incredibly diverse in its method of activation. Some TRP channels seem to be constitutively open, while others are gated by voltage, intracellular Ca2+, pH, redox state, osmolarity, and mechanical stretch. These channels also vary according to the ion(s) they pass, some being selective for Ca2+ while others are less selective, acting as cation channels. This family is subdivided into 6 subfamilies based on homology: classical (TRPC), vanilloid receptors (TRPV), melastatin (TRPM), polycystins (TRPP), mucolipins (TRPML), and ankyrin transmembrane protein 1 (TRPA).
 * Hyperpolarization-activated cyclic nucleotide-gated channels: The opening of these channels is due to hyperpolarization rather than the depolarization required for other cyclic nucleotide-gated channels. These channels are also sensitive to the cyclic nucleotides cAMP and cGMP, which alter the voltage sensitivity of the channel's opening. These channels are permeable to the monovalent cations K+ and Na+. There are 4 members of this family, all of which form tetramers of six-transmembrane α subunits. As these channels open under hyperpolarizing conditions, they function as pacemaking channels in the heart, particularly the SA node.
 * Voltage-gated proton channels: Voltage-gated proton channels open with depolarization, but in a strongly pH-sensitive manner. The result is that these channels open only when the electrochemical gradient is outward, such that their opening will only allow protons to leave cells. Their function thus appears to be acid extrusion from cells. Another important function occurs in phagocytes (e.g. eosinophils, neutrophils, macrophages) during the "respiratory burst." When bacteria or other microbes are engulfed by phagocytes, the enzyme NADPH oxidase assembles in the membrane and begins to produce reactive oxygen species (ROS) that help kill bacteria.  NADPH oxidase is electrogenic, moving electrons across the membrane, and proton channels open to allow proton flux to balance the electron movement electrically.

Ligand-gated (neurotransmitter)
Also known as ionotropic receptors, this group of channels open in response to specific ligand molecules binding to the extracellular domain of the receptor protein. Ligand binding causes a conformational change in the structure of the channel protein that ultimately leads to the opening of the channel gate and subsequent ion flux across the plasma membrane. Examples of such channels include the cation-permeable nicotinic acetylcholine receptors, ionotropic glutamate-gated receptors, acid sensing ion channels (ASICs), ATP-gated P2X receptors, and the anion-permeable γ-aminobutyric acid-gated GABAA receptor.

Ion channels activated by second messengers may also be categorized in this group, although ligands and second messengers are otherwise distinguished from each other.

Lipid-gated
This group of channels opens in response to specific lipid molecules binding to the channel's transmembrane domain typically near the inner leaflet of the plasma membrane. Phosphatidylinositol 4,5-bisphosphate (PIP2) and phosphatidic acid (PA) are the best-characterized lipids to gate these channels. Many of the leak potassium channels are gated by lipids including the inward-rectifier potassium channels and two pore domain potassium channels TREK-1 and TRAAK. KCNQ potassium channel family are gated by PIP2. The voltage activated potassium channel (Kv) is regulated by PA. Its midpoint of activation shifts +50 mV upon PA hydrolysis, near resting membrane potentials. This suggests Kv could be opened by lipid hydrolysis independent of voltage and may qualify this channel as dual lipid and voltage gated channel.

Other gating
Gating also includes activation and inactivation by second messengers from the inside of the cell membrane – rather than from outside the cell, as in the case for ligands.

 * Some potassium channels:
 * Inward-rectifier potassium channels: These channels allow potassium ions to flow into the cell in an "inwardly rectifying" manner: potassium flows more efficiently into than out of the cell. This family is composed of 15 official and 1 unofficial member and is further subdivided into 7 subfamilies based on homology. These channels are affected by intracellular ATP, PIP2, and G-protein βγ subunits. They are involved in important physiological processes such as pacemaker activity in the heart, insulin release, and potassium uptake in glial cells. They contain only two transmembrane segments, corresponding to the core pore-forming segments of the KV and KCa channels. Their α subunits form tetramers.
 * Calcium-activated potassium channels: This family of channels is activated by intracellular Ca2+ and contains 8 members.
 * Tandem pore domain potassium channel: This family of 15 members form what are known as leak channels, and they display Goldman-Hodgkin-Katz (open) rectification. Contrary to their common name of 'Two-pore-domain potassium channels', these channels have only one pore but two pore domains per subunit.
 * Two-pore channels include ligand-gated and voltage-gated cation channels, so-named because they contain two pore-forming subunits. As their name suggests, they have two pores.
 * Light-gated channels like channelrhodopsin are directly opened by photons.
 * Mechanosensitive ion channels open under the influence of stretch, pressure, shear, and displacement.
 * Cyclic nucleotide-gated channels: This superfamily of channels contains two families: the cyclic nucleotide-gated (CNG) channels and the hyperpolarization-activated, cyclic nucleotide-gated (HCN) channels. This grouping is functional rather than evolutionary.
 * Cyclic nucleotide-gated channels: This family of channels is characterized by activation by either intracellular cAMP or cGMP. These channels are primarily permeable to monovalent cations such as K+ and Na+. They are also permeable to Ca2+, though it acts to close them. There are 6 members of this family, which is divided into 2 subfamilies.
 * Hyperpolarization-activated cyclic nucleotide-gated channels
 * Temperature-gated channels: Members of the transient receptor potential ion channel superfamily, such as TRPV1 or TRPM8, are opened either by hot or cold temperatures.

Classification by type of ions

 * Chloride channels: This superfamily of channels consists of approximately 13 members. They include ClCs, CLICs, Bestrophins and CFTRs. These channels are non-selective for small anions; however chloride is the most abundant anion, and hence they are known as chloride channels.
 * Potassium channels
 * Voltage-gated potassium channels e.g., Kvs, Kirs etc.
 * Calcium-activated potassium channels e.g., BKCa or MaxiK, SK, etc.
 * Inward-rectifier potassium channels
 * Two-pore-domain potassium channels: This family of 15 members form what is known as leak channels, and they display Goldman-Hodgkin-Katz (open) rectification.
 * Sodium channels
 * Voltage-gated sodium channels (NaVs)
 * Epithelial sodium channels (ENaCs)
 * Calcium channels (CaVs)
 * Proton channels
 * Voltage-gated proton channels
 * Non-selective cation channels: These non-selectively allow many types of cations, mainly Na+, K+ and Ca2+, through the channel.
 * Most transient receptor potential channels

Classification by cellular localization
Ion channels are also classified according to their subcellular localization. The plasma membrane accounts for around 2% of the total membrane in the cell, whereas intracellular organelles contain 98% of the cell's membrane. The major intracellular compartments are endoplasmic reticulum, Golgi apparatus, and mitochondria. On the basis of localization, ion channels are classified as:

 * Plasma membrane channels
 * Examples: Voltage-gated potassium channels (Kv), Sodium channels (Nav), Calcium channels (Cav) and Chloride channels (ClC)
 * Intracellular channels, which are further classified into different organelles
 * Endoplasmic reticulum channels: RyR, SERCA, ORAi
 * Mitochondrial channels: mPTP, KATP, BK, IK, CLIC5, Kv7.4 at the inner membrane and VDAC and CLIC4 as outer membrane channels.

Other classifications
Some ion channels are classified by the duration of their response to stimuli:

 * Transient receptor potential channels: This group of channels, normally referred to simply as TRP channels, is named after their role in Drosophila visual phototransduction. This family, containing at least 28 members, is diverse in its mechanisms of activation. Some TRP channels remain constitutively open, while others are gated by voltage, intracellular Ca2+, pH, redox state, osmolarity, and mechanical stretch. These channels also vary according to the ion(s) they pass, some being selective for Ca2+ while others are less selective cation channels. This family is subdivided into 6 subfamilies based on homology: canonical TRP (TRPC), vanilloid receptors (TRPV), melastatin (TRPM), polycystins (TRPP), mucolipins (TRPML), and ankyrin transmembrane protein 1 (TRPA).

Detailed structure
Channels differ with respect to the ion they let pass (for example, Na+, K+, Cl−), the ways in which they may be regulated, the number of subunits of which they are composed and other aspects of structure. Channels belonging to the largest class, which includes the voltage-gated channels that underlie the nerve impulse, consists of four or sometimes five subunits with six transmembrane helices each. On activation, these helices move about and open the pore. Two of these six helices are separated by a loop that lines the pore and is the primary determinant of ion selectivity and conductance in this channel class and some others. The existence and mechanism for ion selectivity was first postulated in the late 1960s by Bertil Hille and Clay Armstrong. The idea of the ionic selectivity for potassium channels was that the carbonyl oxygens of the protein backbones of the "selectivity filter" (named by Bertil Hille) could efficiently replace the water molecules that normally shield potassium ions, but that sodium ions were smaller and cannot be completely dehydrated to allow such shielding, and therefore could not pass through. This mechanism was finally confirmed when the first structure of an ion channel was elucidated. A bacterial potassium channel KcsA, consisting of just the selectivity filter, "P" loop, and two transmembrane helices was used as a model to study the permeability and the selectivity of ion channels in the Mackinnon lab. The determination of the molecular structure of KcsA by Roderick MacKinnon using X-ray crystallography won a share of the 2003 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.

Because of their small size and the difficulty of crystallizing integral membrane proteins for X-ray analysis, it is only very recently that scientists have been able to directly examine what channels "look like." Particularly in cases where the crystallography required removing channels from their membranes with detergent, many researchers regard images that have been obtained as tentative. An example is the long-awaited crystal structure of a voltage-gated potassium channel, which was reported in May 2003. One inevitable ambiguity about these structures relates to the strong evidence that channels change conformation as they operate (they open and close, for example), such that the structure in the crystal could represent any one of these operational states. Most of what researchers have deduced about channel operation so far they have established through electrophysiology, biochemistry, gene sequence comparison and mutagenesis.

Channels can have single (CLICs) to multiple transmembrane (K channels, P2X receptors, Na channels) domains which span plasma membrane to form pores. Pore can determine the selectivity of the channel. Gate can be formed either inside or outside the pore region.

Pharmacology
Chemical substances can modulate the activity of ion channels, for example by blocking or activating them.

Ion channel blockers
A variety of ion channel blockers (inorganic and organic molecules) can modulate ion channel activity and conductance. Some commonly used blockers include:

 * Tetrodotoxin (TTX), used by puffer fish and some types of newts for defense. It blocks sodium channels.
 * Saxitoxin is produced by a dinoflagellate also known as "red tide". It blocks voltage-dependent sodium channels.
 * Conotoxin is used by cone snails to hunt prey.
 * Lidocaine and novocaine belong to a class of local anesthetics which block sodium ion channels.
 * Dendrotoxin is produced by mamba snakes, and blocks potassium channels.
 * Iberiotoxin is produced by the Hottentotta tamulus (Eastern Indian scorpion) and blocks potassium channels.
 * Heteropodatoxin is produced by Heteropoda venatoria (brown huntsman spider or laya) and blocks potassium channels.

Ion channel activators
Several compounds are known to promote the opening or activation of specific ion channels. These are classified by the channel on which they act:
 * Calcium channel openers, such as Bay K8644
 * Chloride channel openers, such as phenanthroline
 * Potassium channel openers, such as minoxidil
 * Sodium channel openers, such as DDT

Diseases
There are a number of disorders which disrupt normal functioning of ion channels and have disastrous consequences for the organism. Genetic and autoimmune disorders of ion channels and their modifiers are known as channelopathies. See Category:Channelopathies for a full list.

 * Shaker gene mutations cause a defect in the voltage gated ion channels, slowing down the repolarization of the cell.
 * Equine hyperkalaemic periodic paralysis as well as human hyperkalaemic periodic paralysis (HyperPP) are caused by a defect in voltage-dependent sodium channels.
 * Paramyotonia congenita (PC) and potassium-aggravated myotonias (PAM)
 * Generalized epilepsy with febrile seizures plus (GEFS+)
 * Episodic ataxia (EA), characterized by sporadic bouts of severe discoordination with or without myokymia, and can be provoked by stress, startle, or heavy exertion such as exercise.
 * Familial hemiplegic migraine (FHM)
 * Spinocerebellar ataxia type 13
 * Long QT syndrome is a ventricular arrhythmia syndrome caused by mutations in one or more of presently ten different genes, most of which are potassium channels and all of which affect cardiac repolarization.
 * Brugada syndrome is another ventricular arrhythmia caused by voltage-gated sodium channel gene mutations.
 * Polymicrogyria is a developmental brain malformation caused by voltage-gated sodium channel and NMDA receptor gene mutations.
 * Cystic fibrosis is caused by mutations in the CFTR gene, which is a chloride channel.
 * Mucolipidosis type IV is caused by mutations in the gene encoding the TRPML1 channel
 * Mutations in and overexpression of ion channels are important events in cancer cells. In Glioblastoma multiforme, upregulation of gBK potassium channels and ClC-3 chloride channels enables glioblastoma cells to migrate within the brain, which may lead to the diffuse growth patterns of these tumors.

History
The fundamental properties of currents mediated by ion channels were analyzed by the British biophysicists Alan Hodgkin and Andrew Huxley as part of their Nobel Prize-winning research on the action potential, published in 1952. They built on the work of other physiologists, such as Cole and Baker's research into voltage-gated membrane pores from 1941. The existence of ion channels was confirmed in the 1970s by Bernard Katz and Ricardo Miledi using noise analysis. It was then shown more directly with an electrical recording technique known as the "patch clamp", which led to a Nobel Prize to Erwin Neher and Bert Sakmann, the technique's inventors. Hundreds if not thousands of researchers continue to pursue a more detailed understanding of how these proteins work. In recent years the development of automated patch clamp devices helped to increase significantly the throughput in ion channel screening.

The Nobel Prize in Chemistry for 2003 was awarded to Roderick MacKinnon for his studies on the physico-chemical properties of ion channel structure and function, including x-ray crystallographic structure studies.

Culture

Roderick MacKinnon commissioned Birth of an Idea, a 5 ft tall sculpture based on the KcsA potassium channel. The artwork contains a wire object representing the channel's interior with a blown glass object representing the main cavity of the channel structure.

title: Ion channel


text:
IDE

IDE, iDE, or Ide may refer to:

Organisations

 * Institut für Dokumentologie und Editorik, a German think tank for the application of digital methods on historical documents
 * Institute of Developing Economies, a semi-governmental research institute in Japan
 * Institute for Democratic Education, founded by Yaacov Hecht
 * Instituto de Desenvolvimento Educacional, a Brazilian institution linked with Fundação Getúlio Vargas
 * International Development Enterprises, a development NGO based in Denver, Colorado
 * Party of Internet Democracy, a political party in Hungary

Biology and medicine

 * Ide (fish), a freshwater fish
 * Intact dilation and extraction, a form of abortion
 * Insulin-degrading enzyme, Insulysin, an enzyme
 * Infectious disease epidemiology, the study of the patterns of communicable diseases at the population level
 * Investigational Device Exemption, a US Food and Drug Administration regulatory status

Chemistry

 * Suffix -ide for some molecules in the IUPAC nomenclature of inorganic chemistry

Computing

 * Integrated development environment, a software application for software development
 * Integrated Drive Electronics, a computer hardware bus for disk drives, retroactively termed Parallel ATA

Places

 * Ide, Devon, a village in England
 * Ide, Kyoto, a town in Japan

Greek mythology

 * Ida (mother of Minos), daughter of Corybas, the wife of Lycastus king of Crete, and the mother of the "second" king Minos of Crete
 * Ida (nurse of Zeus), who along with her sister Adrasteia, nursed Zeus on Crete

Abbreviations

 * Sometimes used to refer to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, an organizational equality training term

People

 * Samuel Krafsur (1913–1983), (KGB codename)
 * Ide Schelling (born 1998), Dutch cyclist

Given name

 * Íde, a feminine name of Gaelic origin

Surname

 * Bob Ide, American politician
 * Charlie Ide (born 1988), English footballer
 * Haruya Ide (井出 遥也), Japanese footballer
 * Henry Clay Ide (1844–1921), American commissioner to Samoa and the Philippines
 * Junpei Ide (井出 隼平), Japanese shogi player
 * Juri Ide (井出 樹里), Japanese triathlete
 * Kaname Ide (井出 かなめ), Japanese speed skater
 * Ide Kaoru (井手 薰), Japanese architect
 * Toshirō Ide (井手 俊郎), Japanese screenwriter
 * William B. Ide (1796–1852), author of the California Republic's proclamation of independence from Mexico
 * Yasunori Ide (井出 安軌), Japanese anime creator
 * Yuji Ide (井出 有治), Japanese racing driver

title: IDE


text:
Integrated development environment

An integrated development environment (IDE) is a software application that provides comprehensive facilities for software development. An IDE normally consists of at least a source-code editor, build automation tools, and a debugger. Some IDEs, such as IntelliJ IDEA, Eclipse and Lazarus contain the necessary compiler, interpreter or both; others, such as SharpDevelop and NetBeans, do not.

The boundary between an IDE and other parts of the broader software development environment is not well-defined; sometimes a version control system or various tools to simplify the construction of a graphical user interface (GUI) are integrated. Many modern IDEs also have a class browser, an object browser, and a class hierarchy diagram for use in object-oriented software development.

Overview
Integrated development environments are designed to maximize programmer productivity by providing tight-knit components with similar user interfaces. IDEs present a single program in which all development is done. This program typically provides many features for authoring, modifying, compiling, deploying and debugging software. This contrasts with software development using unrelated tools, such as vi, GDB, GNU Compiler Collection, or make.

One aim of the IDE is to reduce the configuration necessary to piece together multiple development utilities. Instead, it provides the same set of capabilities as one cohesive unit. Reducing setup time can increase developer productivity, especially in cases where learning to use the IDE is faster than manually integrating and learning all of the individual tools. Tighter integration of all development tasks has the potential to improve overall productivity beyond just helping with setup tasks. For example, code can be continuously parsed while it is being edited, providing instant feedback when syntax errors are introduced, thus allowing developers to debug code much faster and more easily with an IDE.

Some IDEs are dedicated to a specific programming language, allowing a feature set that most closely matches the programming paradigms of the language. However, there are many multiple-language IDEs.

While most modern IDEs are graphical, text-based IDEs such as Turbo Pascal were in popular use before the availability of windowing systems like Microsoft Windows and the X Window System (X11). They commonly use function keys or hotkeys to execute frequently used commands or macros.

History

IDEs initially became possible when developing via a console or terminal. Early systems could not support one, since programs were submitted to a compiler or assembler via punched cards, paper tape, etc. Dartmouth BASIC was the first language to be created with an IDE (and was also the first to be designed for use while sitting in front of a console or terminal). Its IDE (part of the Dartmouth Time Sharing System) was command-based, and therefore did not look much like the menu-driven, graphical IDEs popular after the advent of the Graphical User Interface. However it integrated editing, file management, compilation, debugging and execution in a manner consistent with a modern IDE.

Maestro I is a product from Softlab Munich and was the world's first integrated development environment for software. Maestro I was installed for 22,000 programmers worldwide. Until 1989, 6,000 installations existed in the Federal Republic of Germany. Maestro was arguably the world leader in this field during the 1970s and 1980s. Today one of the last Maestro I can be found in the Museum of Information Technology at Arlington in Texas.

One of the first IDEs with a plug-in concept was Softbench. In 1995 Computerwoche commented that the use of an IDE was not well received by developers since it would fence in their creativity.

, the most commonly searched for IDEs on Google Search were Visual Studio, Visual Studio Code, and Eclipse.

Syntax highlighting
The IDE editor usually provides syntax highlighting, it can show both the structures, the language keywords and the syntax errors with visually distinct colors and font effects.

Code completion
Code completion is an important IDE feature, intended to speed up programming. Modern IDEs even have intelligent code completion.

Refactoring
Advanced IDEs provide support for automated refactoring.

Version control
An IDE is expected to provide integrated version control, in order to interact with source repositories.

Debugging
IDEs are also used for debugging, using an integrated debugger, with support for setting breakpoints in the editor, visual rendering of steps, etc.

Code search
IDEs may provide support for code search. Code search has two different meanings. First, it means searching for class and function declarations, usages, variable and field read/write, etc. IDEs can use different kinds of user interface for code search, for example form-based widgets and natural-language based interfaces. Second, it means searching for a concrete implementation of some specified functionality.

Visual programming
Visual programming is a usage scenario in which an IDE is generally required. Visual Basic allows users to create new applications by moving programming, building blocks, or code nodes to create flowcharts or structure diagrams that are then compiled or interpreted. These flowcharts often are based on the Unified Modeling Language.

This interface has been popularized with the Lego Mindstorms system and is being actively perused by a number of companies wishing to capitalize on the power of custom browsers like those found at Mozilla. KTechlab supports flowcode and is a popular open-source IDE and Simulator for developing software for microcontrollers. Visual programming is also responsible for the power of distributed programming (cf. LabVIEW and EICASLAB software). An early visual programming system, Max, was modeled after an analog synthesizer design and has been used to develop real-time music performance software since the 1980s. Another early example was Prograph, a dataflow-based system originally developed for the Macintosh. The graphical programming environment "Grape" is used to program qfix robot kits.

This approach is also used in specialist software such as Openlab, where the end-users want the flexibility of a full programming language, without the traditional learning curve associated with one.

Language support
Some IDEs support multiple languages, such as GNU Emacs, IntelliJ IDEA, Eclipse, MyEclipse, NetBeans, MonoDevelop, JDoodle or PlayCode.

Support for alternative languages is often provided by plugins, allowing them to be installed on the same IDE at the same time. For example, Flycheck is a modern on-the-fly syntax checking extension for GNU Emacs 24 with support for 39 languages. Another example is JDoodle, an online cloud-based IDE that supports 88 languages. Eclipse, and Netbeans have plugins for C/C++, Ada, GNAT (for example AdaGIDE), Perl, Python, Ruby, and PHP, which are selected between automatically based on file extension, environment or project settings.

Implementation
IDEs can be implemented in various languages, for example:
 * GNU Emacs using Emacs Lisp and C;
 * IntelliJ IDEA, Eclipse and NetBeans, using Java;
 * MonoDevelop using C#.

Attitudes across different computing platforms
Unix programmers can combine command-line POSIX tools into a complete development environment, capable of developing large programs such as the Linux kernel and its environment. In this sense, the entire Unix system functions as an IDE. The free software GNU toolchain (including GNU Compiler Collection (GCC), GNU Debugger (GDB), and GNU make) is available on many platforms, including Windows. The pervasive Unix philosophy of "everything is a text stream" enables developers who favor command-line oriented tools to use editors with support for many of the standard Unix and GNU build tools, building an IDE with programs like Emacs or Vim. Data Display Debugger is intended to be an advanced graphical front-end for many text-based debugger standard tools. Some programmers prefer managing makefiles and their derivatives to the similar code building tools included in a full IDE. For example, most contributors to the PostgreSQL database use make and GDB directly to develop new features. Even when building PostgreSQL for Microsoft Windows using Visual C++, Perl scripts are used as a replacement for make rather than relying on any IDE features. Some Linux IDEs such as Geany attempt to provide a graphical front end to traditional build operations.

On the various Microsoft Windows platforms, command-line tools for development are seldom used. Accordingly, there are many commercial and non-commercial products. However, each has a different design commonly creating incompatibilities. Most major compiler vendors for Windows still provide free copies of their command-line tools, including Microsoft (Visual C++, Platform SDK, .NET Framework SDK, nmake utility).

IDEs have always been popular on the Apple Macintosh's classic Mac OS and macOS, dating back to Macintosh Programmer's Workshop, Turbo Pascal, THINK Pascal and THINK C environments of the mid-1980s. Currently macOS programmers can choose between native IDEs like Xcode and open-source tools such as Eclipse and Netbeans. ActiveState Komodo is a proprietary multilanguage IDE supported on macOS.

Online
An online integrated development environment, also known as a web IDE or cloud IDE, is a browser based IDE that allows for software development or web development. An online IDE can be accessed from a web browser, allowing for a portable work environment. An online IDE does not usually contain all of the same features as a traditional or desktop IDE although all of the basic IDE features, such as syntax highlighting, are typically present.

A Mobile-Based Integrated Development Environment (IDE) is a software application that provides a comprehensive suite of tools for software development on mobile platforms. Unlike traditional desktop IDEs, mobile-based IDEs are designed to run on smartphones and tablets, allowing developers to write, debug, and deploy code directly from their mobile devices.

title: Integrated development environment