Evolution of complexity/information

Sounds like a good definition to me.

I think almost everybody would agree with this. I know you want to quantify and not only qualify. But I don't think it will do the evolution thing any good when saying that it can not account for an increase of 'information' or 'complexity', because everybody (with gut feelings) thinks that this will be necessary to account for not being uni-cellular anymore.

The fact that evolutionists lack the ability to measure increase in complexity tells me that they simply don't want to.The truth is that a human IS WAYYY more complex than a cup of primordial soup (I've already explained why: more features tied together by increase in functionality). If evolutionists deny this, then they've got bigger problems. To say that evolution does not require an increase in complexity is dumb.So since it obviously requires an increase in complexity, we should be able to determine if and how much this happens in the variations we see today and in the variations in the fossil record. This seems like good science to me. Why haven't evolutionists pursued this?

You are turning an observation into a requirement.

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

I tried to discover why so many biologists don't want to talk about 'complexity', 'increasing complexity' or even 'information'. Therefore I writed down three assumptions. It seems that several were quite correct in your particular case. I post it because it illustrates for others why definitions of 'information' or 'complexity' are not good enough for some persons on this forum. So, that's a binary definition of complexity? If there is any component that can be subtracted then it's complex, and else it isn't?By the way, the definition seems a little bit odd to me for to reasons:

• it's sometimes possible to perform another function when subtracting a component
• maybe it's necessary to add first a component before subtracting others (tower of Hanoi idea)

So, I would like it if you can define complexity for this rather simple 'complex' systems.

How the heck do I calculate the amount of complexity one thing has and compare it to another? If I can't do that I can't talk about it increasing or decreasing.This is just a bunch of words that are themselves not defined in this context. As best as I can tell it is clear that evolutionary processes can both increase and decrease this thing called "complexity" but I'm not at all sure because I can't really tell what it is from this.

I don't understand your point here.Gut feelings say that a uni-cellular life form is less complex than a multi. I think we would like a quantitative definition that produces this result. When someone supplies the definition we can then say whether evolutionary processes can produce more or less of it. In the meantime any such statments are meaningless.'Sides unicellular to multi isn't that big a deal from an evolutionary perspective. Why is it tossed in here?

You say that evolution can not increase something that you call "complexity". Until you define how to quantify the amount of
"complexity" increase you are talking about you have made a statement with no meaning. You lack the ability to measure it. You say it can't increase. You have no foundation for that since you can't measure it. I have never said it doesn't supply (some times) an increase in complexity. But this increase is simply a gut feel and not measured any more than your's is. However evolution does not require an increase. It may or may not result in it.Now please tell me how much more complex a human is than a dog. I would like to know if it falls in one of these ranges:
1) under 10 times more complex
2) over 10 and under 100 times
3) over 100 and under 1,000 times
4) over 1,000 timesShow how you determined this. I have no idea what you are saying here. What is there to pursue exactly?Once you define a change in complexity that I can use to calculate complexity in an unambiguous fashion I will show you variations that both increase and decrease it.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 07-12-2004 01:39 PM

How to convince someone
What would help to convince somebody of the power of the evolution process in increasing complexity, are papers like that of Tom Schneider here. He's using Shannon's measure of information to observe information gain in artificial proteins.
Someone wouldn't be convinced if evos keep saying that 'information' and 'complexity' are to difficult to define.{doesn't need reply}

quote:

---

The fact that evolutionists lack the ability to measure increase in complexity tells me that they simply don't want to.

---

No one, including creationists, have been able to define an objective measurement of complexity within biological organisms. For all intents and purposes, the only difference between a bacterial cell and a human being is the number of genes. There is nothing more complex about human DNA sequences than bacterial DNA sequences. DNA proscribes, either directly or indirectly, the function of proteins. Proteins then construct the cell. This process is the same between bacteria and humans, nothing more complex about one than the other besides the number of proteins doing the building. Hence, more proteins means more things that are built. It is like saying a subdivision is more complex than a single house. This really misses the point that nothing substantially different is happening when you add more houses.

I'm happy with defining information as Shannon information. I haven't seen a good quantifiable definition of "complexity" yet. If someone wants to equate that with Shannon information that would be ok with me. However, it doesn't supply a very good "gut feel" type result.Maybe there is someone who can give a good definition of "complexity".Since it is the anti-evolution crowd that make statements about "complexity" and how it can or can not increase I am waiting for them to define what the heck they mean when they use the word."Obviously" doesn't cut it. Comparing extremes doesn't cut it. I don't want a definition based on a "gut feel" idea that a man is more complex than a microbe. I want a definition that can tell me if my cat is more complex than the neighbors dog and if so by how much. Since the evolutionary processes do not make "complexity" jumps from creatures that are very far apart on anyone's complexity scale they definition has to pick between complexities that are very close.So my question becomes separating my cat and the dog. Not humans and bugs.

I often hear that Humans are more intellegent than the Gorilla.But one:

• never seems in a hurry.
• spends his day eating and playing with the kids.
• has his women folk about him.
• takes a nap every day.
• never worries about what to wear.
• never worries about budgets or taxes.
• has never gone to war.
• doesn't much care what the neighbors think.
• is never late for work.
• has never heard kids asking "What's for dinner"?
• doesn't have to block out channels on the remote.

I have a feeling that just maybe, when they were handing out intellegence, the Gorillas and Humans flipped a coin.We lost.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

because they're biologists. try talking to geneticists, i'm sure they'll tell you all about information and genes. don't look at me, i didn't make it up. actually, this is the case all the time. when cornered in debate, behe makes it very clear that just the overall function which he has designated fails. very often subsystems work just fine independently. (even though behe insists he's not dealing with things with subsystems early in his book. basically, he's full of crap) and vice versa. evolution does funny things. hey, you brought it up. i wasn't saying your definition was WRONG. i was asking for elaboration and examples.

i'd argue that abstract thought is more important to this point. i've seen some dolphins do some very intelligent things, and we know chimps can use language. irrelevant. these systems do not develop independently. lots of animals have hands, vocal chords, and forward facing eyes. not alot of animals today are bipeds though (although lots of dinosaurs were). that's good. science studies god's creation. the problem arises in the fact that creationism does not, favouring man's bible instead.

hahahaha, is there a post of the month thread yet?