[...]
>
>I would like to interject a suggestion. Complexity is probably the wrong
>word to use, since randomness is the most complex state possible (requiring
>the greatest volume of descriptors). I prefer the term information,
>identified in biological systems by the addition of specific new
>functionality. In this context, Lee Spetner (Not by Chance!) has made a
>(in my opinion) compelling case for the absence for any evidence for the
>addition of new information in the whole history of the study of biological
>organisms. Thus, those who believe that an increase in information can
>result from evolution are in the same boat as those who do not.
Hi Art, thanks for your comments. The criticism you raise has
been raised by many in the past, so much so that the notion of
complexity that I was discussing has been abandoned by many and
for exactly the reason that you suggest. Complexity is maximum
for random configurations. But this seems to me to be hardly a
good criticism. Random systems are, after all, complex aren't
they? But one has the same difficulty with information measures
and in fact the descriptive (or algorithmic) definition of
complexity I was discussing is really a perfectly reasonable
definition of information content as well.
I say this really just to emphasize the point that both complexity
and information suffer from this "drawback". I think I agree with
you in spirit. Complexity is certainly not the only thing of interest.
Nevertheless, it's important to hang on to the idea of complexity since
biological thingies are complex. But, in addition to complexity they
also have organization. Throwing this in allows us to get around the
difficulty you mention. Randomness does represent maximal complexity
but it is not organized.
Organization carries with it the idea of functionality and would
thus be amenable to your suggestion above. The problem as I
see it is how to measure organization at least to the extent
that one could reliably tell when one structural arrangement
is more organized than another. For example, suppose we have
two mouse traps. The first is a simple mousetrap that we're
all used to, the kind Mike discusses in his book. The second is
enormously complex, the mouse disturbs some lever which causes
a weight to drop on another lever which bounces a ball to the top
of a winding track. When the ball gets to the bottom it hits a
flint which lights a candle, the candle burns through a
cord which drops a basket on the mouse. OK, so you're probably
thinking that the mouse may have moved during all this time.
True, but there is laser tracking device the output of which
positions a crane such that the basket always stays above the mouse
as it moves. The second mouse trap seems to me to be both more
organized and more complex than the first. Is it better? Probably
depends on who you ask.
Now, wrt Spetner, I hesitate to answer since I haven't read his
book. The title is suggestive of the possibility that Spetner
may be following the well worn path of the argument from the
false alternative. If its not by chance then it must have been by
design. I remember well a comment made by Will Provine on the
asa listserve. Given a choice between chance and design he would
choose design without hesitation.
Also, the claim above regarding the lack of evidence for any
addition of new information seems to me to be extraordinary.
Is he saying that human beings, for example, do not have more
information than say ancient pre-cambrian organisms?
Brian Harper
Applied Mechanics
Ohio State University
214 Boyd Lab
155 W. Woodruff Ave
Columbus, OH 43210
"God forbid that we should give out a dream of
our own imagination for a pattern of the world"
-- Francis Bacon