Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Orgel and Dembski Redux

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

 

A couple of months ago I quoted from Lesli Orgel’s 1973 book on the origins of life.  L. E. Orgel, The Origins of Life: Molecules and Natural Selection (John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; New York, 1973).  I argued that on page 189 of that book Orgel used the term “specified complexity” in a way almost indistinguishable from the way Bill Dembski has used the term in his work.  Many of my Darwinian interlocutors demurred.  They argued the quotation was taken out of context and that Orgel meant something completely different from Dembski.  I decided to order the book and find out who was right.  Below, I have reproduced the entire section in which the original quotation appeared.  I will let readers decide whether I was right.  (Hint: I was).

 

All that follows is a word-for-word reproduction of the relevant section from Orgel’s book:

 

[Page 189]

Terrestrial Biology

Most elementary introductions to biology contain a section on the nature of life.  It is usual in such discussions to list a number of properties that distinguish living from nonliving things. Reproduction and metabolism, for example, appear in all of the lists; the ability to respond to the environment is another old favorite.  This approach extends somewhat the chef’s definition “If it quivers, it’s alive.” Of course, there are also many characteristics that are restricted to the living world but are not common to all forms of life.  Plants cannot pursue their food; animals do not carry out photosynthesis; lowly organisms do not behave intelligently.

It is possible to make a more fundamental distinction between living and nonliving things by examining their molecular structure and molecular behavior.  In brief, living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity.*· Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple, well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way.  Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures which are complex but not specified.  The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity, the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity.

_______

* It is impossible to find a simple catch phrase to capture this complex idea.  “Specified and. therefore repetitive complexity” gets a little closer (see later).

[Page 190]

These vague ideas can be made more precise by introducing the idea of information.  Roughly speaking, the information content of a structure is the minimum number of instructions needed to specify the structure.  One can see intuitively that many instructions are needed to specify a complex structure.  On the other hand, a simple repeating structure can be specified in rather few instructions.  Complex but random structures, by definition, need hardly be specified at all.

These differences are made clear by the following example.  Suppose a chemist agreed to synthesize anything that could describe [sic] accurately to him.  How many instructions would he need to make a crystal, a mixture of random DNA-like polymers or the DNA of the bacterium E. coli?

To describe the crystal we had in mind, we would need to specify which substance we wanted and the way in which the molecules were to be packed together in the crystal.  The first requirement could be conveyed in a short sentence.  The second would be almost as brief, because we could describe how we wanted the first few molecules packed together, and then say “and keep on doing the same.”  Structural information has to be given only once because the crystal is regular.

It would be almost as easy to tell the chemist how to make a mixture of random DNA-like polymers.  We would first specify the proportion of each of the four nucleotides in the mixture.  Then, we would say, “Mix the nucleotides in the required proportions, choose nucleotide molecules at random from the mixture, and join them together in the order you find them.”  In this way the chemist would be sure to make polymers with the specified composition, but the sequences would be random.

It is quite impossible to produce a corresponding simple set of instructions that would enable the chemist to synthesize the DNA of E. coli.  In this case, the sequence matters; only by specifying the sequence letter-by-letter (about 4,000,000 instructions) could we tell the chemist what we wanted him to make.  The synthetic chemist would need a book of instructions rather than a few short sentences.

It is important to notice that each polymer molecule in a random mixture has a sequence just as definite as that of E.

[Page 191]

coli DNA.  However, in a random mixture the sequences are not specified, whereas in E. coli, the DNA sequence is crucial.  Two random mixtures contain quite different polymer sequences, but the DNA sequences in two E. coli cells are identical because they are specified.  The polymer sequences are complex but random; although E. coli DNA is also complex, it is specified in a unique way.

The structure of DNA has been emphasized here, but similar arguments would apply to other polymeric materials.  The protein molecules in a cell are not a random mixture of polypeptides; all of the many hemoglobin molecules in the oxygen-carrying blood cells, for example, have the same sequence.  By contrast, the chance of getting even two identical sequences 100 amino acids long in a sample of random polypeptides is negligible.  Again, sequence information can serve to distinguish the contents of living cells from random mixtures of organic polymers.

When we come to consider the most important functions of living matter, we again find that they are most easily differentiated from inorganic processes at the molecular level.  Cell division, as seen under the microscope, does not appear very different from a number of processes that are known to occur in colloidal solutions.  However, at the molecular level the differences are unmistakable:  cell division is preceded by the replication of the cellular DNA.  It is this genetic copying process that distinguishes most clearly between the molecular behavior of living organisms and that of nonliving systems.  In biological processes the number of information-rich polymers is increased during growth; when colloidal droplets “divide” they just break up into smaller droplets.

Comments
fifthmonarchyman: By definition there are no “workings” to be described when it comes to a Turing Oracle it is a black box when it comes to computational description. Heh. Just because you call it a black box doesn't mean it doesn't entail complexity. There are even complexity classes for oracle machines. In any case, the minimal descriptive complexity is at least equal to the information passed through the interface. fifthmonarchyman: The k-complexity using this approach is huge and grows forever as more detail is needed. No. That is not correct. Your expansion is a simple series, which is algorithmically simple.Zachriel
January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT
Allow me to elaborate a little suppose I wanted to calculate the the K-complexety of the answer to this question "what is the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter?" We could start out by trying to square the circle and end up with an algorithm like this 4*(1 - 1/3 + 1/5 - 1/7 + ...) The k-complexity using this approach is huge and grows forever as more detail is needed. On the other hand we could answer the question with the following solution "Pi" This solution has very little K-complexety and is more complete than our first attempt. The problem with Darwinism is that it begins with the first approach and can only continue to increase in complexity as time passes. It will never be simpler peacefifthmonarchyman
January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT
Zac said, If the agent is non-algorithmic, it adds at least as much K-complexity as required to describe the workings of the agent, which may very well be infinite. I say, By definition there are no "workings" to be described when it comes to a Turing Oracle it is a black box when it comes to computational description. An Oracle may be very complex just not K-Complex. check it out http://www.blythinstitute.org/images/data/attachments/0000/0041/bartlett1.pdf and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_machine Peacefifthmonarchyman
January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT
fifthmonarchyman: By that logic a model in which the lower trunk of the tree of life is more bush like would be much more complex than one with one a unified trunk from the very beginning. That's correct, but still much lower descriptive complexity than if each kind is its own tree. fifthmonarchyman: On the other hand adding intelligent design to any model of evolution adds no K complexity at all because by definition intelligence is not algorithmic. What? Not by definition certainly. If the agent is non-algorithmic, it adds at least as much K-complexity as required to describe the workings of the agent, which may very well be infinite.Zachriel
January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT
Zac says, Depends what you mean by huge. I say, I mean having a large amount of K complexity more that say a simple explanation like RM/NS alone You say. Without the organizing principle of common descent, then the descriptive complexity is even higher. I say, By that logic a model in which the lower trunk of the tree of life is more bush like would be much more complex than one with one a unified trunk from the very beginning. Wow, the more I think about it the more I realize that a Darwinisttic model would have to be profoundly K complex. Just think about it. Every single additional add-on to the simple RM/NS core costs the model more from a computational perspective. On the other hand adding intelligent design to any model of evolution adds no K complexity at all because by definition intelligence is not algorithmic. Isn't that an odd insight? peacefifthmonarchyman
January 23, 2015
January
01
Jan
23
23
2015
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT
fifthmonarchyman: So any model based on Darwinism would have a huge amount of K complexity Depends what you mean by huge. Without the organizing principle of common descent, then the descriptive complexity is even higher.Zachriel
January 23, 2015
January
01
Jan
23
23
2015
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT
ZAc says. Biological evolution is far more complex than that. Petrushka says, There are 20 or so named varieties of mutation. I say. So any model based on Darwinism would have a huge amount of K complexity Correct? peacefifthmonarchyman
January 23, 2015
January
01
Jan
23
23
2015
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT
There are 20 or so named varieties of mutation.Petrushka
January 23, 2015
January
01
Jan
23
23
2015
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT
fifthmonarchyman: In the case of Darwinism it can never be shorter than RM plus NS. Biological evolution is far more complex than that. fifthmonarchyman: The problem was that that simple description was not quite sufficient to explain the phenomenon so we needed to add the additional complexity of NeoDarwinism Darwin's theory was much more than 'RM plus NS'. It also included common descent with all its variations such as hybridization, not to mention contingency. 'RV plus NS' was shorthand for complex processes even in Darwin's time. Darwin lacked a working theory of genetics, but that doesn't mean he was unaware that there had to be a mechanism of heredity and for the generation of novelty. While the former was obvious, the latter you can treat as a prediction. fifthmonarchyman: his model relies on algorithmic mutation to introduce diversity, whereas real organisms generally undergo bitwise mutation. Bitwise mutation is only one form of variation. Variation also includes recombination, splicing, and various forms of network regulation.Zachriel
January 23, 2015
January
01
Jan
23
23
2015
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT
That being said I do appreciate the link Me_think. Gregory Chaitin is no slouch when it comes to this stuff so looks like an interesting read. I'm not sure what to make of the generally poor reviews from both sides of the debate. I suppose I need to check it out myself. peacefifthmonarchyman
January 23, 2015
January
01
Jan
23
23
2015
04:00 AM
4
04
00
AM
PDT
From Me_Think's link Quote: But there's one fundamental problem here - his model relies on algorithmic mutation to introduce diversity, whereas real organisms generally undergo bitwise mutation. Hence, his model allows for a much more sophisticated search of the genotype space than is allowed in nature. In the same vein, by his own admission, the model can not actually be simulated, because it relies on a fitness function that can not be guaranteed to produce a result. end Quote: This is what we get from a 2013 book. Apparently there is more work to be done to produce the "whole math of evolution". I wonder what the K complexity will be when and if we finally have a working model based on Darwinism. I would assume it will be huge. peacefifthmonarchyman
January 23, 2015
January
01
Jan
23
23
2015
03:44 AM
3
03
44
AM
PDT
DesignDetectiveDave @ 59
Show me the maths
If you want to look beyond Dembski, you can read the whole math of evolution in : Proving Darwin: Making Biology Mathematical by Gregory Chaitin Let me know how good it is. I haven't read it :-)Me_Think
January 23, 2015
January
01
Jan
23
23
2015
12:57 AM
12
12
57
AM
PDT
E.Seigner:
Orgel: The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity, the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity.
There is no such thing as a simple living being. There is no such thing as a complex living being that is not specified. Orgel, or Dembski?Mung
January 22, 2015
January
01
Jan
22
22
2015
07:12 PM
7
07
12
PM
PDT
poor keiths. so lost.Mung
January 22, 2015
January
01
Jan
22
22
2015
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT
Show me the maths. Show me a please? No, that's OK, manners are often lacking around here. But you're vary laconic, and while I appreciate (and even envy) that quality, it means I'm not really sure what maths. I have no idea how to calculate Orgel's specified complexity. He doesn't seem to have thought it was readily quantifiable either, but I haven't read his book so I'm just assuming that. Calculating Dembski's metrics is sort of notoriously, hilariously hard to do. But I think the best source of the calculation is Dembski's 2005 paper, Specification etc. He gives the calculation on page 24. I can't reproduce it here, because I don't know how to reproduce the non-Latin symbols. I also don't think I could calculate it, unless someone specified the inputs for me--figuring those out is also notoriously, hilariously hard to do. But I know that the calculation includes an explicit, necessary assessment of "P(T|H)." In the context of a biological structure, T is "the evolutionary event/pathway that brings about that pattern." H is "the relevant chance hypothesis that takes into account Darwinian and other material mechanisms." I don't think Orgel's thoughts on specified complexity contemplate either T or H. (Maybe T, if "evolve this thing" is a cognizable instruction, but then wouldn't his instruction sets be super-short and thus not complex?) I don't see anything like H in Orgel's work. KF keeps implying it's there. Maybe he can show you the maths.Learned Hand
January 22, 2015
January
01
Jan
22
22
2015
05:30 PM
5
05
30
PM
PDT
Zac says, There may be a shorter description that eludes you I say, In the case of Darwinism it can never be shorter than RM plus NS. Correct? You say, With biology, there was the elaboration pre-Darwin, which was replaced by the simpler, unifying Darwinian description. I say, The problem was that that simple description was not quite sufficient to explain the phenomenon so we needed to add the additional complexity of NeoDarwinism .correct? peacefifthmonarchyman
January 22, 2015
January
01
Jan
22
22
2015
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT
fifthmonarchyman: K complexity is easy. K-complexity is hard. K-complexity refers to the shortest possible description in a given description language. Providing a description and showing it is the shortest possible description are quite different problems. fifthmonarchyman: Now if it turned out that our model did not completely explain the Panorama of life we would have to add terms like neutral drift and HGT to the algorithm thus increasing it’s complexity So let's say we have a very elaborate description, perhaps an astrolabe to mirror the movements of the planets. However, you haven't shown it is the simplest description. There may be a shorter description that eludes you, say gravity. With biology, there was the elaboration pre-Darwin, which was replaced by the simpler, unifying Darwinian description. Before Darwin, there were all these individual species. After Darwin, they were all manifestations of a common ancestry.Zachriel
January 22, 2015
January
01
Jan
22
22
2015
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT
Show me the maths.DesignDetectiveDave
January 22, 2015
January
01
Jan
22
22
2015
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT
DDD, what don't you believe? That Orgel's complexity isn't calculable, or that Dembski's is? Orgel uses e coli DNA as an example, and points out that the instructions for building it would have to specify each strand to get an accurate copy. I guess you could calculate that, if the algorithm were just picking bases. Dembski's approach is different, though. He's not looking at how many steps it would take to assemble something, but rather whether that assembly could happen without design. His calculations require an assessment of the probability of a non-design origin. The length of Orgel's instruction chain is relevant to those calculations--I agree there's a connection between these ideas--but it's not an equivalency. Dembski's definitions are far afield of Orgel's thinking, based on the excerpt our host defensively asserts are definitive proof that they're identical.Learned Hand
January 22, 2015
January
01
Jan
22
22
2015
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT
K complexity is easy. Just measure the length of the algorithm that produces a particular output. The question is, do we have a candidate algorithm that we can measure? suppose we were using the following algorithm "RM + NS= Panorama of life" Depending on the language we would assign a value to the model lets say 10. Now if it turned out that our model did not completely explain the Panorama of life we would have to add terms like neutral drift and HGT to the algorithm thus increasing it's complexity, we would continue the process until "Panorama of life" was completely explained peacefifthmonarchyman
January 22, 2015
January
01
Jan
22
22
2015
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT
I don't believe you. Can Anyone here do the math? KF?DesignDetectiveDave
January 22, 2015
January
01
Jan
22
22
2015
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT
How would you calculate Orgel's complexity? I think you've identified another fundamental difference between the two concepts: Dembski's is actually calculable in theory, if you know inputs such as P(T|H). I think he even acknowledged that difference. If I remember right, he said he was trying to operationalize or formalize Orgel's work.Learned Hand
January 22, 2015
January
01
Jan
22
22
2015
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT
If you think they're different LH why don't you calculate both and show it?DesignDetectiveDave
January 22, 2015
January
01
Jan
22
22
2015
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT
Regardless I’d say complexity is complexity as far as information in CSI goes it’s the specification that is important . I think I got that impression from your earlier comments, and I think that's where I mistook your meaning. I disagree in that I think Orgel's complexity is distinct from Dembski's complexity, but since I also think Dembski is generally pretty consistent about how he defines complexity (at least in his works written on a level I can comprehend) I don't think it's a significant issue.Learned Hand
January 22, 2015
January
01
Jan
22
22
2015
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT
Learned hand says, But now it looks like you’re asking whether there’s some way to tell whether something is “complex” without relying on probability. No, I don’t think there is–I think Dembksi only really thinks of this in probabilistic terms. I say. I've been thinking about this for quite a while now. I think a strong argument against Darwinism can be made based on Kolmogorov complexity. It's not exactly Dembski's argument but it rhymes and Dembski was a large part of the inspiration. If it was not so far off topic and did not require so much background I'd love to knock it around here. I'm biding my time till the right thread comes up. stay tuned. Regardless I'd say complexity is complexity as far as information in CSI goes it's the specification that is important . Peacefifthmonarchyman
January 22, 2015
January
01
Jan
22
22
2015
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT
LH, blanket dismissal in the teeth of well warranted facts, with just a dash of ad hominem. KFkairosfocus
January 22, 2015
January
01
Jan
22
22
2015
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT
Recall that this began when Barry alleged that Orgel and Debmski were using the terms in "exactly" the same way. (I'm pretty sure the emphasis was original.) KF's long, rambling arguments make it embarrassingly obvious that the concepts aren't "exactly" the same or "almost indistinguishable" as Barry now claims. How could they be, when they produce very different results for examples such as Keith's? But those same long, rambling arguments make it appear as if there must be an answer; how could someone write so much without actually addressing Keith's simple point? (Dear reader--if there's an answer somewhere in KF's lectures, I have not found it.) It seems to me to be, in the local vernacular, a literature bluff. The very length and roundabout nature of KF's attempts to salvage this increasingly desperate face-saving campaign provide an inadvertent rebuttal to Barry's bluff. Concepts that are "exactly" the same or "almost indistinguishable" don't take so much sweaty effort to connect. Dembski is relying on probability. Orgel is relying on length of instruction set. As Keith's examples and mine show, there's a real difference between the two--they produce different answers in different situations. The two concepts can certainly be connected--Dembski is making a good-faith effort to do that--but so can temperature and pressure. They're different concepts nevertheless. But that won't be acknowledged, or addressed simply. Guys, the harm of being childish and demanding apologies from those who doubted you is that when it turns out you've made a mistake, it'll be almost impossible to muster up the character to back down. How can you, when you've demanded that people grovel for the sin of doubting you? Instead we'll get more bluster and rambling efforts to shore up the tenuous connection.Learned Hand
January 22, 2015
January
01
Jan
22
22
2015
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT
F/N: Just as a 101 note, when for instance we set up a pendulum, and explore the period of oscillations we assess a particular aspect of the entity, we ignore its colour, etc. And in assessing period, we will see further aspects of the phenomenon, some that are mechanically necessary and some that display a noise pattern due to various chance factors. Of course, the string, the bob, the suspension, the timing clock etc are all designed, but that is not relevant to the particular aspects of interest. In short, addressing entities and phenomena on aspects is a routine approach in the real world of doing science, something we would do in early experiments in science in school. Just, to draw out a bit the selective hyperskepticism, strawman tactic, zero concessions tactics and fallacy of the closed mind unfortunately shown above by KS. KFkairosfocus
January 22, 2015
January
01
Jan
22
22
2015
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT
Could both Kairosfocus and KeithS please state for the record if they think A cylindrical crystal of pure silicon has high or low specified complexity and high or low Kolmogorov complexity? Also I think a glossary of technical terms might be useful? DDDDesignDetectiveDave
January 22, 2015
January
01
Jan
22
22
2015
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT
KS, you are simply repeating an error that was specifically corrected this morning. A sadly familiar pattern for you. KFkairosfocus
January 22, 2015
January
01
Jan
22
22
2015
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply