There is Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism (Dawkins), Punctuated Equilibrium Evolution (Gould), Panspermia (Sagan), A 3rd Way (Wagner), Evo Devo (DeBeers), sort of a back-to-the-drawing board (Mazur) and now Assembly Theory (Cronin).
Q: So, what is Assembly Theory?
A: Evidently, it can be confusing to understand since Tour himself initially had a hard time understanding it, as did a number of other scientists.
Computer scientist and logic expert, Hector Zenil, for example, argues strongly that Leroy Cronin’s Assembly Theory is nothing more than a “dictionary-based compression algorithm” that is commonly used
by computer algorithms to compress files – specifically the LZ77 compression algorithm.
For example, say that there’s a string of AAAAA… measuring 1,000 characters in length. A compression algorithm could simply code for this with a much shorter sequence by saying “Print A 1000 times”. Such a high level of compressibility for this strong of As means that it has low “complexity”.
Basically, Assembly Theory is simply determining the “complexity” of a system in very much the same way as has historically already been done in computer science – by “Combining the power of Shannon Information/Entropy and Kolmogorov-Chaitin complexity by way of Solomonoff-Levin Probability” . The problem is that none of these measures of “complexity” is a measure of meaningful or functional complexity.
Q: So, is it really true that Assembly Theory is nothing more than a compression algorithm?
A: Well, Onsi Fakhouri, an astrophysics researcher and tech executive, has an interesting take on this. In his discussion with James Tour, he noted that while Assembly Theory is a compression algorithm, it also adds the additional element of “selection” – the need for a “selector” to explain a given system or arrangement of building blocks (be it a living thing, an arrangement of poker cards, or Lego blocks).
The basic argument is that the selection of any random thing can end up producing noticeable “complexity” above the background noise, which is true. Everyone agrees. However, the type of complexity is important here when it comes to explaining the existence of a living thing.
--A given selector in the environment, like a specific temperature acting on a material like water, may produce something more “complex” and even “specified”, like a particular type of snowflake. The same thing is true for a selector like gravity acting on gases comprised of randomly arranged atoms and cosmic dust to produce stars, planets, solar systems, and galaxies.
*However, that’s not the same type of complexity as a living thing or a complex machine where multiple different types of parts are needed to interact in a very specific way to produce a very specific type of function (i.e., specified functional complexity at different levels having different minimum part requirements).
Assembly Theory doesn’t apply here since
Assembly Theory isn’t concerned about
the “right type” of selector that selects the “right thing.”
In short, in order to explain the origin of life, or any other complex machine requiring multiple different interacting parts working in collective harmony to produce a given function, the selector itself must be even more functionally complex than what it is producing or creating. Take a complex automobile, for example. It could be produced entirely by robots in a factory. However, the robots themselves have to have access to be even more functionally complex than the automobiles that they are assembling, to including having access to all of the structurally complex information necessary to correctly assemble the automobiles so that they will actually function, in addition to their own structure and functional complexity.
The argument that life exists, therefore life evolved by random chance, is a non sequitur – a very obvious circular argument.
.webp)
The best that Assembly Theory can do is detect that high-level selection has happened, but the very existence of life does not explain the mechanism of how life came to be – the actual nature of the “selector”. The bottom line is that Cronin is just assuming what he wants to prove. He hasn’t actually demonstrated anything regarding how any natural mindless mechanism could reasonably explain the origin of life.
Fakhouri asks the key question. “What is the driving force behind selection?”
Of course, we are “not allowed to go there” because the only known “selector” that is actually capable of producing complex machines, to include the type of machines necessary to produce a living thing, is an intelligent creator at the level of a God or God-like intelligence."
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Fakhouri asks the key question. “What is the driving force behind selection?”
“If only we knew of a mechanism, something that routinely steps through combinatorial space to assemble functional objects. You know, functional objects like talks, and papers, and equations, and ideas like Assembly Theory. You know, a mechanism like, but nah – we all know that we’re not allowed to go there.”
Of course, we are “not allowed to go there” because the only known “selector” that is actually capable of producing complex machines, to include the type of machines necessary to produce a living thing, is an intelligent creator at the level of a God or God-like intelligence."
Genesis 1:1
EducateTruth
