Purple Hearts
Main menu
Scopo del sito
Mappa del sito
ID in pillole
Libri stranieri
Libri italiani


Remember me
Forgotten your password?


Sex contradicts Darwin

The Complementary Specified Complexity (CSC)

Darwin considered reproduction as very important in nature because it is a sort of "mixer" of genetic characters. Reproduction is a component of natural selection. Who has characteristics more desirable will reproduce more and so best characters will become predominant. For Darwin reproduction is the "motor" of his natural selection, hence he considered it as a proof of his theory on origin of species. Unfortunately for Darwin, if sexual reproduction, from a point of view, is useful, from another it denies the neo-Darwinian evolutionism. The following considerations will try to show you the reasons in an elementary way.

In the biological reign it happens that in an animal there are organs with a shape and a function perfectly suited to the shape and function of a complementary organ of another animal. The typical examples are the male and female reproduction organs in mammals. Sure, in the case of the man-woman couple, the reproduction organs are not the unique example of complementarity: in fact these beings complement each other in many ways on all existential planes. It's undeniable that such a spectacular example of complementarity evidences a common project, of which man and woman are two forms perfectly complementary. The existence of complementary organs is related to the issue of what we could name in general "Complementary Specified Complexity" (CSC). 

To explain exactly this concept, it's good to remember first briefly the fundamental concept of "Intelligent Design Theory" (IDT) that is called "Complex Specified Information" (CSI). To do that one can consider the clearer example possible: the language. A short word of the English dictionary, composed of few characters, is specified but not complex. Being simple it might be generated by chance. A very long random sequence of characters is complex but not specified. Instead a book is a very long sequence of characters both complex and specified. In front of this and other similar situations we says that we deal with "Complex Specified Information". Of course the CSI concept is very general and is applicable not only to character sequences, numbers o bits but also in every cases containing information of any type. In fact the term "information", according to its extended significance, deals with all things owning qualities, properties, attributes, characteristics and quantities. Another IDT concept is called "Irreducible Complexity" (IC). A system is irreducibly complex when it fail to function when deprived of one or more of its elements.

Returning to the CSC, we have to observe that CSC differs from CSI because while CSI concerns one system only CSC concerns two systems in the same time. Think of the seminal apparatuses of mammals. First, they own the characteristic of irreducible complexity (IC), which denies functioning precursors. "Functioning precursor" is a sub-system of the final system able to carry out the same way all the functions of the final system. In other words, from the beginning one needs gametes, organs generating them, systems to put them in touch and systems to house and manage the product of their union, i.e. the egg cell first and the embryo after. There is neither law nor randomness from which complementary organs could derive. In other words CSC is another particular and spectacular sort of CSI.

Obviously the complementary organs in nature are perfectly explicable from an Intelligent Design point of view. Male and female of a sexual species are two perfectly complementary forms of a common project. Instead the existence of complementary organs is absolutely inexplicable from an evolutionary point of view. In fact Darwinian basic mechanisms function at the level of a single individual.

Instead sexual reproduction functions in general at the level of two individuals. Admit for absurdity that a Darwinian process had just produced the male individual of a certain species.  At this point, a very long mutation-selection process should generate the female of the same species. But mutation and selection need reproduction to function. Unfortunately reproduction is yet missing! Here we see another clear proof of the absurdity of Darwinism. For definition, the mutation-selection is a not teleological blind process. So the arise of a complementary organ in another individual (female) has to be considered fully accidental. Whether Darwinian evolution of an organ has an extremely low probability then a parallel evolution of a pair of complementary organs is quite impossible. This miracle, already quite impossible in a species, it becomes impossible "powered to n-th power" if we think that - according to the hypothesis of Darwinism - it should have happened for all sexual species!

Examine the details of the issue. Male and female individuals of a species have apparatuses exactly organized to interface each other. Male and female individuals of a species have the same degree of complexity. They are quite similar but not identical. The key point here is the interface between them, which in this case is based on their differences. It would be a non-sense to consider the male reproductive apparatus alone, without considering the complementary female reproductive apparatus. Each of these two organisms independently from the other can entails Darwinian evolutionary mechanisms. Each of these two organisms can live in the environment and exploit many identical functions. But there are highly complex functions that can be achieved only if they strictly cooperate thank to their complementary apparatuses. So we are in front of something that is sensitive to name "complementary specified complexity".

In the field of molecular biology one could see an elementary form of CSC also in the strict complementary relation existing between the two helixes of DNA. As known, DNA is a macromolecule composed of two sequences of four different kinds of molecular bases (nucleotides named A, C, G, T). The two strands are interlaced and wrapped for their entire length by means of hydrogen bonds connecting transversally couples of kind TA/AT or GC/CG. These bonds are such that whether in a DNA solution a molecule meets a complementary molecule then they wrap together. That would not happen without this precise physical-chemical complementary relation developing in the space. Human DNA has near 3 billions of nucleotides. From the point of view of information, human DNA can be considered a double character string of near 6 billions bits (750 Mbyte, as a CD-ROM). Since DNA has a diameter of near 2 microns, the DNA length is almost 500,000 times its diameter. Only thank to its flexibility, DNA can stay into the chromosomes.  

Anyway the concept of CSC is a general one because it is valid also outside biology. Here it is a very simple mechanical example: a bolt and a nut. The couple bolt-nut owns CSC. Of course you might consider the couple bolt-nut as a whole. In this case CSC defaults to the classical CSI. Here we can see as CSC and CSI have the same nature at last, the character of specified complexity. A connection or junction made by a bolt-nut owns irreducible complexity (IC). In fact the connection needs both components. Here we have a minimum IC (two elements only), but anyway an effective IC.  In general a functioning complex interface shared between two systems owns CSC and is characterized by IC.

Another more technological example of CSC is the peer-to-peer communication between two computers. As known a pair of computers can communicate only if they implement identical protocols. In other words they must have two interfaces conforming to identical specifications. These specifications regard several levels, from physical to applicative (see OSI seven layers stack protocol specifications). These communicating interfaces have CSC.

This example allows us to further investigate the complementary relation concept. It's evident that a complementary relation can have different degrees or levels of achievement and can be of different kinds. Compare the two cited example above: the biological one about reproductive organs and the artificial one about computer interfacing. In the former the "interfaces" are different, in the latter the interfaces might be equal. In effect to detect CSC it is not necessary the interfaces are different (as sexual organs and the couple bolt-nut). The key concept here is that the design of the first interface must consider the design of the second one. In other words, CSC needs a knowledge sharing. It is impossible to design a CSC couple of systems without knowing both systems. This is the very reason for Darwinism is unable to explain CSC in nature. Natural selection, being a blind and unguided process, can deal with a single system only, and it cannot share knowledge of two systems in the same time.

About computers one might object that the communication between them is a simple interaction only. The answer is: computer networking entails complex interactions. Besides we can say the complementary relation between computers is of different type respect sexual organs in biology. Anyway also communication entails transmitter and receiver roles. When communication is bidirectional the two computers carry out these roles alternatively. Instead when the communication paradigm implemented is "client-server", the server role (and the client role) is always carried out by the same computer. Hence also in telecommunication we can consider a "polarization", i.e. different, complementary roles. To sum up, either we face interactions or communications or complementary relations, all the times that between two systems there is a complex specified interface, we can say they implements CSC.

In biology also the reproductive complementary apparatuses can be considered at many levels (as the communication protocols). Here the "layers stack" ranges from the bio-chemical level to the tissues level, from the genetic level to the morphological level and so on. Notice that at the genetic level gametes must share perfectly a common DNA digital information code specification. That isn't an easy task at all! So also here the CSC inference spans on several levels of interfacing. The multi-levels approach is typical of  CSC and CSI analysis of complex systems.

The CSC concept become particularly interesting when applied to biological systems because it allows seeing more clearly the impossibility of Darwinian macroevolution. Since random mutations and natural selection is a concept applicable to one individual alone, it is unable to explain the arise in the same time of complex reproductive interfaces between two individuals. Without reproduction there is no population. Without population there is no natural selection. In a sense we could say that if CSI rebuts Darwinism CSC a fortiori does.

Of course two separated and independent CSI systems don't own necessarily CSC. A radio set is a CSI system. An electric razor is another CSI system. They are two separated and independent CSI systems. But they haven't CSC because they haven't to interface at all. Instead the complementary reproductive apparatuses have CSC because they must strictly interface each other. The male organ has CSI. The female organ has CSI. Why here does CSC arise? Here CSC arises exactly because the CSI of the male organ interfaces perfectly with the CSI of the female organ. These two CSI systems are strictly correlated, interlaced, interfaced, interconnected and joined under all aspects. Therefore we can say CSC is the result of the interfacing of two CSI systems. As such the CSC concept entails information too. Said another way, CSI and CSC have the same measure unit.

We can see the issue another way. Suppose you have to project two independent CSI systems (e.g. the radio and razor above). Sure you don't worry about any problems of interface between them. But imagine you have to project two CSI systems that must interface (e.g. an audio pre-amplifier and a final-amplifier of a stereo set). Now you have to consider the CSI1 of the pre-amplifier, the CSI2 of the final-amplifier and all the technical problems related to their interfacing (name that shared complexity "CSC"). You have to think of the stereo system as a whole. Therefore the global complexity of your stereo system will be roughly the sum of two CSI and one CSC: CSI1 + CSI2 + CSC. See the following figure:


The values of the addends of this sum and their ratios can assume very different values. We can define the "Integration Ratio" IR as the ratio between the CSC value and the sum of the two CSI: IR = CSC / (CSI1 + CSI2). In the case of two independent and separated systems the IR value is zero (the systems integrate and complement in no way, e.g. the radio and razor above). Among the example above, it's clear that the couple bolt-nut has a very high IR value. Instead the couple of amplifiers have a very low IR value. Said another way, the CSC component can be preponderant, or can entail only a little percentage of the other CSI components. All depends on the characteristics of the whole project. Obviously, more is the weight of the CSC component, i.e. the IR value, more is the complementary relation or the "integration" between the two CSI systems. The weight of CSC in these cases assumes a decisive role to inference intelligent design about the investigated systems. In the biological field notice that, more is the amount of CSC, more is refuted the hypothetical Darwinian random arise of organisms.

A possible objection might be: there is no evidence that two complementary things must have information. Imagine two things endowed with a form such to complement and represent a whole. Must these things have necessarily information? The answer to this question entails a general cosmological ascertainment: in the cosmos anything owns information. A thing without information at all simply cannot exist. It's always a matter of amount of information. The concept of CSC - as the CSI does - requests that both specification and complexity are high (i.e. the amount of information is high). We have to examine in each particular case these data. When two things fit, not always we face CSC. A particular scenario might lack of specification, or complexity, or both.

We provide an example of not-CSC. In a golf field a ball falls in the hole. Here to infer CSC is exaggerated. Yes, there are two things fitting (the ball and the hole) but here specification and complexity are too low. In fact in nature randomness and laws can simulate similar scenarios. Think of a drop of rain falling in a hole or the wind that pushes a rolling stone into a fissure in the ground. Of course in nature drops and rocks are not perfectly spherical, holes and fissures are not perfectly cylindrical. But anyway, when neither CSI nor CSC is present, nature is able to produce at some degree similar situations. Instead in nature "chance and necessity", randomness and laws, can simulate neither CSI nor CSC.

An astronautical example of CSC could be something like this: a satellite module grapples the orbital station. Here both specification and complexity are present. A great amount of information is implied. This is a clear example of CSC between two complex systems.

Since to explain the CSI concept we have taken examples from the language, we might ask what, in the field of language, can represent an example of CSC. Consider two books written by two different authors. Imagine that in the second book are present comments, answers, references and objections relative to what is written in the first book. One could say that between the two books there is a particular kind of CSC. Another simpler example is a review, i.e. an article about another article or book. Or think of a crossword puzzle. If we consider the set of the horizontal words as CSI1 and the set of the vertical words as CSI2, the crossword puzzle expresses the CSC between them. This is an example of language CSC with an high IR value. Several other examples might be found in various fields.

An objection that some could rise against our CSC argument as Intelligent Design inference is this: perhaps the universe has the inner potentiality to develop certain configurations, and also those complementary and correlated to some pre-existent configurations. Consider DNA. Perhaps natural factors and forces are able to explain the development of the molecular machinery of transcription and translation, thanks to the ability of nature to create complementary structures. The answer to this objection is easy. A hypothetical "tendency of nature to create [complex and specified] complementary structures" would be exactly a particular form of a hypothetical "tendency of nature to create [complex and specified] information". Hence the answer is identical in both cases. More cannot derive from less. Information of any kinds cannot derive from something less than itself. A fortiori information cannot derive from nothingness. Whether nature just contains all the huge information for the origin of life, who puts it in there, where that comes from? An information-filled universe without a first principle/cause is pantheism. Pantheism is logically a non-sense.

An often-asked question is: "sure computers, books and CD-ROMs contain information. But do we really want to say that all things have information or own information? What really information is? We would need to define information". The answer needs to expand more our horizon. When saying "in the cosmos anything owns information" we mean "anything owns qualities, properties, attributes, characteristics and quantities". Thus, in a more general definition, the term "information" can be used as an alias of all those terms. But for simplicity we can consider here only the Shannon's definition of digital information as sequences of bits (1/0). It easy to understand that a CD-ROM contains bits, it is enough to observe it by means of a microscope. You will see holes (1) or not-holes (0). What about a book? A book hasn't holes. But a book contains characters. By means of a coding system (e.g. ASCII code) we can convert any character to a string of 8 bits. Thus books have bits too. A figure contains many pixels (little colored areas). By means of a graphic coding (e.g. JPEG) it is possible to convert graphic pixels in bits (that is done by digital cameras). Also music can be expressed in bits, sampling the waveforms, i.e. measuring the amplitude of each points of the wave. Then such numbers can be expressed in bits. Sure a photograph of an object cannot transmit to us all information contained into it. There are objects impossible to photograph. Consider an electron: are we sure that actual atomic physics knows all about? We think that, in general, things in the cosmos contain more information than we can express, measure, quantify and transmit. That leads us to think about the fundamental limits of modern science, when science wants to apply reductionism and positivism only.

To sum up we think CSC concept might help to improve the explicative power of Intelligent Design about many scenarios in the cosmos.