Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

How can we measure specified complexity?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

A friend asked about this common intelligent design concept. Specified complexity, also called complex specified information (CSI):

Life shows evidence of complex, aperiodic, and specified information in its key functional macromolecules, and the only other example we know of such function-specifying complex information are artifacts designed by intelligent agents. A chance origin of life would exceed the universal probability bound (UPB) set by the scope of the universe; hence design is a factor in the origin and development of life. Contrary to a commonly encountered (and usually dismissive) opinion, this concept is neither original to Dr Dembski nor to the design theory movement. Its first recognized use was by noted Origin of Life researcher, Leslie Orgel, in 1973:

Living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity. [ L.E. Orgel, 1973. The Origins of Life. New York: John Wiley, p. 189.

The concept of complex specified information helps us understand the difference between (a) the highly informational, highly contingent aperiodic functional macromolecules of life and (b) regular crystals formed through forces of mechanical necessity, or (c) random polymer strings. In so doing, they identified a very familiar concept — at least to those of us with hardware or software engineering design and development or troubleshooting experience and knowledge. Furthermore, on massive experience, such CSI reliably points to intelligent design when we see it in cases where we independently know the origin story. More.

Here are some suggested resources:

Bill Dembski: Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence

Kirk K Durston et al. Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins

Winston Ewert at Evolutionary Informatics

Robert M. Hazen et al. Functional information and the emergence of biocomplexity (public access) A friend notes, “Functional information, as outlined by Hazen et al., can be a measure of specified complexity, where the specificity supplies the functional constraint.”

Robert M. Hazen et al. Functional Information and the Emergence of Biocomplexity pdf (book)

Note: Another term used around here is irreducible complexity:

Irreducible Complexity, IC — A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, nonarbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system’s basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system. (Dembski, No Free Lunch, p. 285

See also: Could a signature of specified complexity help us find alien life?

or

A Tutorial on Specified Complexity

Comments
The claim that is refuted is that there is no evidence for evolution. Can I trust now that you'll not repeat that false claim?Mung
September 2, 2017
September
09
Sep
2
02
2017
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT
@Mung, I've received the book you recommended. Upon a brief skim, it appears to state that only low evidence supports macroevolution, whereas high evidence suggests the probability chimpanzees evolved into humans is miniscule. So, I'm not sure what you meant when you said it offered evidence of evolution. It appears the high confidence evidence discredits the low confidence evidence.EricMH
September 2, 2017
September
09
Sep
2
02
2017
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT
EricMH: The book discusses algorithmic specified complexity, which is Dr. Ewert’s implementation of CSI in a computational domain. His IEEE paper on applying ASC to the game of life is very good. If you are interested in Dembski COI, you should check out Dr. Marks’ book, too.
In my last response, I assumed that you were clever. Now I see that you're highly confused, and unworthy of any further response from me. To whomever it was that donated about $250 thousand to the Center for Evolutionary Informatics (I guess the financier Ide Trotter because his endorsement of the book Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics came out of the blue), I say that you've made a very bad investment -- unless, of course, you are deeply gratified by sending befuddled YECs to an "apostate" Christian institution.Erasmus Wiffball
August 14, 2017
August
08
Aug
14
14
2017
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT
Ide Trotter is the cousin of Bea Gish.Mung
August 14, 2017
August
08
Aug
14
14
2017
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT
The book discusses algorithmic specified complexity, which is Dr. Ewert's implementation of CSI in a computational domain. His IEEE paper on applying ASC to the game of life is very good. If you are interested in Dembski COI, you should check out Dr. Marks' book, too. No idea who Ide Trotter is, seems to be a university administrator.EricMH
August 14, 2017
August
08
Aug
14
14
2017
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT
EricMH: Yes, don’t you think the book is good at applying Dembski’s idea to computer simulations of evolution? Each time the authors are able to show that the information produced by the simulations are directly attributable to the programmers, not the simulations.
Excellent pivot. You'll go far, if you manage to keep your nose cleaner than your predecessor did. However, your willingness to switch silently from specified complexity to active information, and refer nebulously to "Dembski's idea," is not exactly a sign of academic integrity. Since you've acknowledged that you got your book for free, perhaps we could talk about your education. Is your benefactor Ide Trotter, by any chance?Erasmus Wiffball
August 13, 2017
August
08
Aug
13
13
2017
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PDT
Mung: Won't be for long. I'm a sucker for a good specified-complexity story.Erasmus Wiffball
August 13, 2017
August
08
Aug
13
13
2017
06:42 PM
6
06
42
PM
PDT
Yes, don't you think the book is good at applying Dembski's idea to computer simulations of evolution? Each time the authors are able to show that the information produced by the simulations are directly attributable to the programmers, not the simulations. I received a free copy.EricMH
August 13, 2017
August
08
Aug
13
13
2017
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT
Welcome back to UD Erasmus. :)Mung
August 13, 2017
August
08
Aug
13
13
2017
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT
EricMH: I own a copy of Evolutionary Informatics and I highly recommend it for clarity.
Then you are clear on the history of the Law of Conservation of Information, beginning with Dembski's publication of it in 1997, and continuing with Dembski's proof of it in No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence (2002) -- right? Specified complexity is a conserved quantity -- right? Specified complexity is a reliable marker of intelligent design -- right? An object that is statistically improbable in a direction specified not with hindsight alone is high in specified complexity -- right? The book acknowledges that Dawkins was the source of some of Dembski's ideas, just as Dembski acknowledged in an interview with The Best Schools -- right? By the way, how much did you pay for the copy you own?Erasmus Wiffball
August 13, 2017
August
08
Aug
13
13
2017
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT
@21 rvb8, you are right the term is perhaps not widely used, but I remember Dembski citing a couple pre-ID uses of the term. At any rate, that's besides the point, since the concept is widely used, and is the premise behind algorithmic probability. For example, here is P.S. Laplace (1749-1827) using Dembski's coin example: "We arrange in our thoughts all possible events in various classes; and we regard as extraordinary those classes which include a very small number. In the game of heads and tails, if heads comes up a hundred times in a row then this appears to us extraordinary, because the almost infinite number of combinations that can arise in a hundred throws are divided into regular sequences, or those in which we observe a rule that is easy to grasp, and in irregular sequences, that are incomparably more numerous." Kolmogorov formalized Laplace's observation with the idea that an incompressible bitstring is random. Dembski didn't originate anything new besides terminology.EricMH
August 12, 2017
August
08
Aug
12
12
2017
07:26 PM
7
07
26
PM
PDT
"Living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity". [ L.E. Orgel, 1973. The Origins of Life. New York: John Wiley, p. 189. Leslie Orgel is not a part of the ID community RVB8. Are you actually interested in honest dialog? It's much easier (cowardly) to say foolish things hidden behind a computer screen. I suppose you probably would not say such obviously ignorant things face to face. Learn some actual biology.scottH
August 12, 2017
August
08
Aug
12
12
2017
05:15 PM
5
05
15
PM
PDT
rvb8:
It is a term unknown outside the ID community.
And yet people outside of the ID community used it before the ID community did! How is that even possible if you are right?
If ‘specified complexity’ as seen in an ‘irreducibly complex’ system -blood clotting etc- has been so well documented and explained, why do scientists in universities, and laboratories simly ignore its findings in their work?
Willful ignorance plus the unending hope that they will find a way that blind. mindless processes didit.
They are breaking down the flagellum into constituent working parts,
The existence of which they cannot account for.
they are finding immune sytems in other creatures which miss whole series of proteins, but function perfectly well for those creatures.
The existence of which they cannot account for. Did you have a point?ET
August 12, 2017
August
08
Aug
12
12
2017
04:53 AM
4
04
53
AM
PDT
rvb8:
So the flgellum is an example of ‘specified complexity’ because there is no way to remove a part without the mechanism failing.
Hi Troll!Mung
August 12, 2017
August
08
Aug
12
12
2017
12:21 AM
12
12
21
AM
PDT
facepalm^2Mung
August 12, 2017
August
08
Aug
12
12
2017
12:20 AM
12
12
20
AM
PDT
rvb8 @ 21 -- As to what specified complexity’ is --- look at the very first line of the OP. And the various references called out in the OP. My comment here is more directed to the curious onlookers so as they not be distracted by questions that have answers already given in the main body of the article.DonJohnsonDD682
August 12, 2017
August
08
Aug
12
12
2017
12:18 AM
12
12
18
AM
PDT
So the flgellum is an example of ‘specified complexity’ because there is no way to remove a part without the mechanism failing.
facepalmUpright BiPed
August 12, 2017
August
08
Aug
12
12
2017
12:12 AM
12
12
12
AM
PDT
Complexity at the molecular/cellular level is discussed in the article at http://inference-review.com/article/an-open-letter-to-my-colleagues This by a renowned molecular chemist James Tour. Specific complexity and irreducible complexity at the body plan level has been magnificently documented by Dr. Howard Glitsman at: https://evolutionnews.org/2017/03/designed-body-engineered-system-displaying-irreducible-complexity-steroids/DonJohnsonDD682
August 11, 2017
August
08
Aug
11
11
2017
11:56 PM
11
11
56
PM
PDT
So the flgellum is an example of 'specified complexity' because there is no way to remove a part without the mechanism failing. So if I remove one of the proteins in the flagellum it stops working as a motor, thus proving it is irreducibly complex, which points to measurable 'specified complexity'? This 'specified complexity' can also clearly be seen in the irreducible complexity of the immune system, and the blood clotting system? If 'specified complexity' has been explained clearly and simply hundreds of times here, and at other sites, then a certain question ust be raised. If 'specified complexity' as seen in an 'irreducibly complex' system -blood clotting etc- has been so well documented and explained, why do scientists in universities, and laboratories simly ignore its findings in their work? They are breaking down the flagellum into constituent working parts, they are finding immune sytems in other creatures which miss whole series of proteins, but function perfectly well for those creatures. It seems that the specified complexity that ID touts is not very specified, and can indeed be 'reduced' from an imaginary irreducibility. Hi Mung:)rvb8
August 11, 2017
August
08
Aug
11
11
2017
11:54 PM
11
11
54
PM
PDT
rvb8 -- of course it is a non-answer. The question has been answered by many on many, many occasions. But you have to come out of the cave to see it.DonJohnsonDD682
August 11, 2017
August
08
Aug
11
11
2017
11:37 PM
11
11
37
PM
PDT
rvb8:
Perhaps you can start by explaining what ‘specified complexity’ is? It is a term unknown outside the ID community.
Hi Troll!Mung
August 11, 2017
August
08
Aug
11
11
2017
11:25 PM
11
11
25
PM
PDT
Don @22, your non-answer is interesting- still don't know what Spec Complex is. You suggest that the scientists working in universities, government and private laboratories world wide are already using ID paradigms, they just won't admit it? Hmmm, interesting. Is that like the Born Again Christian who tells me there are no ateists, as they also have a god of sorts. Can't win can we. You are working in the 'design paradigm', you just don't know it, you are religious you just have a different deity. I must say however, notwithstanding your objections, that I am indeed an atheist, and these scientists all busilly proving ID, would be highly shocked to learn this. Heh:)rvb8
August 11, 2017
August
08
Aug
11
11
2017
11:15 PM
11
11
15
PM
PDT
rvb8 @21 -- good comments and challenges. Anyone up to responding to his/her remarks? But understand it will continue to be a ping-pong game. His remark "It is a term unknown outside the ID community." I see as quite an indictment of the a/mat world view. If you search the sites of a few of the more prominent materialists such as Coyne, Dawkins, that recently retired Canadian professor (can't remember the name) for discussion on topics such as machines in cells, kinesin motor, you will find scant discussion, mostly of a negative dismissive nature. It's as if they are stuck in the science of many decades past, unable and unwilling to acknowledge the science that operates quietly but effectively under the umbrella of ID, but dare not mention that phrase. My own view of it can be seen at: https://ayearningforpublius.wordpress.com/2012/09/10/atheism/ And remember -- the goal of the friends of ID here is to speak to the wide range of on-lookers who may not choose to comment. We should not expend excess energy on converting rvb8.DonJohnsonDD682
August 11, 2017
August
08
Aug
11
11
2017
10:55 PM
10
10
55
PM
PDT
The topic of the piece is, 'How can we measure specified complexity?' Perhaps you can start by explaining what 'specified complexity' is? It is a term unknown outside the ID community. Once you've done that- and no one has yet, beyond the vaguest of efforts- you can then give us a solid method for detecting it. How is it possible that my posts can distract you from the ID hurdle of detecting 'specified complexity', or more accurately, 'design'?rvb8
August 11, 2017
August
08
Aug
11
11
2017
10:12 PM
10
10
12
PM
PDT
Belfast @19 and others: The objective here should not be to leave rvb8 tattered and torn, but rather to provide positive evidence of ID to this debate. This can also include counter arguments to the a/mat world view, but should always be done in a civil manner. Folks like rvb8 most likely are so set in their dogmatic and ideological world view that you are unlikely to win arguments that shed evidence and sound logic in favor of emotional insults. Be civil!!DonJohnsonDD682
August 11, 2017
August
08
Aug
11
11
2017
09:40 PM
9
09
40
PM
PDT
I was going to tell rvb8 to clear off with his tiresome sarcasm, but I now realise that after he has left the field, tattered and torn, the diffent responses really help me get a more memorable understanding.Belfast
August 11, 2017
August
08
Aug
11
11
2017
06:21 PM
6
06
21
PM
PDT
rvb8's specified complexity measuring tool :cool:ET
August 11, 2017
August
08
Aug
11
11
2017
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT
ET @ 15: "rvb8 is a willfully ignorant troll." He has some good moments, ET. Most of his comments are mere debunking and some are indeed trollish, but it is good to have him around to get the a/mat perspective...even if it is sometimes annoying.Truth Will Set You Free
August 11, 2017
August
08
Aug
11
11
2017
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT
On the other hand, insulting rhetoric from ID proponents is also off putting. We shouldn't feed the trolls, and insults are merely one form of food. In parenting, I've learned kids don't care about what kind of attention they get, so they act out to guarantee at least negative attention.EricMH
August 11, 2017
August
08
Aug
11
11
2017
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT
rvb8 is a willfully ignorant troll. Just because ID doesn't care about something doesn't mean no one can look into it. The designer and the how are just separate questions. But rvb8 is too stupid to understand that simple point. It is also too stupid to understand that his position has all the power and could falsify ID if people who promote it could actually demonstrate it can produce what ID says requires a designer. So yes, rvb8, you are lazy as no one is doing any work to validate your position's grand claims.ET
August 11, 2017
August
08
Aug
11
11
2017
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply