Another school year is set to begin at high schools and colleges where the next round of biology students will be filled with evolutionary misinformation. At the center of this propaganda campaign are the many biology textbooks used to indoctrinate young minds with old dogma. These textbooks contain the latest evolutionary newspeak, but the underlying message is no different.In their text The Living World (Fifth Edition, McGraw Hill, 2008) evolutionists George Johnson and Jonathan Losos rehearse the usual teachings. Students are told that “Microevolution Leads to Macroevolution” with the giraffe’s neck serving as the example of how small change is supposed to accumulate to the large-scale change evolution needs.
Of course this is a long-standing, well-known problem for evolution. Mechanisms for large-scale change are speculative for it does not appear merely to be the result of repeated rounds of microevolution. Johnson and Losos, of course, inform the student of none of this.
The giraffe example is also useful in explaining evolution’s concept of biological variation. The text explains that according to evolution variation arises independent of need or experience via mechanisms such as random mutation.
Contrary to such evolutionary dogma, it has been known for decades that variation is sensitive to experience and need. Evolutionists have resisted this and the text again leaves the student ignorant of the science.
Such misrepresentations of science, as damaging as they are, pale in comparison to Johnson’s and Losos’ next move. The apologists make a failed attempt to enlist the fossil record as powerful evidence for evolution, and end up with only the usual metaphysics. They write:
If the theory of evolution is not correct, on the other hand, then such orderly change is not expected.
Very interesting. And how do evolutionists know so much? From where did Johnson and Losos learn such ultimate truths? If evolution is not correct then such orderly change is not expected? Tell us more.
What are all the possibilities aside from evolution and why do none of them predict “such orderly change”? Why is it that evolution, and only evolution, predicts such an outcome? This is truly fascinating. If and only if evolution is true would we see such orderly change. Johnson and Losos are real geniuses—they have knowledge of all possible causes.
You cannot make this stuff up. In two and half pages the text's chapter on evolution has gone from misleading to absurd. What will come next?
But this is nothing new in evolutionary circles. Only evolutionists teach such a biased version of science.
The bible is the clearest example of old dogma there is! Why won't you be honest about your biological teaching?
ReplyDeleteCornelius G. Hunter is Adjunct Professor at Biola University where their doctrinal statement includes in part –
‘Therefore, creation models which seek to harmonize science and the Bible should maintain at least the following: (a) God providentially directs His creation, (b) He specially intervened in at least the above-mentioned points in the creation process, and (c) God specially created Adam and Eve (Adam’s body from non-living material, and his spiritual nature immediately from God). Inadequate origin models hold that (a) God never directly intervened in creating nature and/or (b) humans share a common physical ancestry with earlier life forms.’
To which I say - Evolution is a fact because I say so and I am prepared to stand up and face your imaginary god in any way he/she/it should wish to challenge me. Bring it on.
I wonder if biology could be the result of a direct creation of an ultimate diety. Why not? Can "science" rule that out? If it cannot, and if biology is created, would it be possible to use the scientific method to investigate the case? If not, why not?
ReplyDeleteIt is sad that science cannot be conducted under a more neutral common ground, for which neither a creationist viewpoint, nor an evolutionist viewpoint are brought in to colour the data. Rather, just simply study the natural world and how it's engineered and replicate these findings for the good of humanity without any abuses or misuses of the findings. Unfortunatey we just don't live in a world that is run that way. Modern science is contaminated with idealogy.
ReplyDelete"Common sense" questions are something that never seems to be allowed in the realm of science when idealogy is at stake. For example, a number of subjects have come up here in this forum blog and they are text book subjects for which we find as subjects taught in schools. I'll just refer to a couple.
First, the Miller-Urey prebiotic soup experiment of how life could have arisen from non-life by naturalistic means. In the experiment, the different componants are broken down for us and what they represent. The water with it's presupposed chemcial composition represents the primitive sea. The the gases added to the atmospheric void inside the chamber represents the imagined primitive atmosphere and the electric spark is supposed to simulate the volcanes or thunder storms that existed back then. The resulting molecules produced are said to represent the building blocks of life. However two of the most "Common Sense" questions are always left out and never dealt with.
(1) "Whom or what does the scientist who performed the experiment represent ??? (2) Does he or she represent blind, pointless, pitiless, indifferent undirected chance, or an intelligent entity ???
Second the extraterrestrial origins story is yet another popular myth that almost always is employed when the discussion of origins of where did the information in the DNA come from ??? In modern times it is popular to distance this question by saying it came from comets, meteors, aliens etc. Many honest scientists will admit that a simple cell is far too complex to have arisen by chance on Earth. But if it is now popular to believe and speculate that life came from an extraterrestrial source, what is the basis for rulling out God as that source ???
I think logical "common sense" scientific inquiry could be dealt with quite well by young minds in school. Let the questions be asked to fresh untainted minds and see what happens. I think the results scare the evos and it is a matter that is out of the question as far as molding young minds. It is far better to keep the answers muddled, fuzzy and grey as opposed to the clarity of true rational and logical thought. This is illustrated by the comments here in this blog after one of Dr Hunter's postings. At first the debates start off interesting, but they quickly morph into redifining definitions of words and expressions followed by mountains of unitelligible "Intellect Speak" which is meant to cloud the subject in the presence of any logical coherent developed answer. At the end it's one person's blind faith verses another. At that point the thread should be closed because insults and vulgarities are all that is left.
I ran across a piece on YouTube , (I'm not sure who the instructor is or where this was done), but it illustrates beautifully how make believe stories are a waste of time in public schools. It's some of the background work done in the creation of the "Lucy" fable.
Enjoy:
"Fixing", Lucy With a Power Saw!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRjEKb3KLiI&feature=player_embedded
Eric said: "To which I say - Evolution is a fact because I say so and I am prepared to stand up and face your imaginary god in any way he/she/it should wish to challenge me. Bring it on."
ReplyDeleteJust be patient. Your chance to defend your position to the Creator will come. I'm afraid you don't really know what you are wishing for. Me thinks that when your time comes, you might wish it hadn't come so soon.
Only evolutionists can make fools of themselves with a straight face and then repeat the process ad nauseam.
ReplyDeleteThat's pretty funny, seeing as how you do it with virtually every fact-free anti-science rant you post.
It is very hard to believe that random mutation selected by nature can shape such complexity in an organism. It is even harder to believe that life can arise randomly. I've seen the evidence but I think we're missing something.
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty scientific too but this really bugs me.
Let's look at mind blowing discovery of quantum mechanical effects in photosynthesis. During photosynthesis, plants are able to simultaneously sample all the potential energy pathways and choose the most efficient one. This is incredible and suggest a kind of intelligence which we do not know about. We have to keep an open mind.
Espagnat said: "It is very hard to believe that random mutation selected by nature can shape such complexity in an organism. It is even harder to believe that life can arise randomly. I've seen the evidence but I think we're missing something."
ReplyDeleteIt is very hard for some people to believe that the earth is round or that it rotates around the sun. It is very hard for some people to believe that complex structures like snowflakes and hurricanes are generated by natural forces.
Your personal incredulity is not an argument.
Derick,
ReplyDeleteThe earth can be observed as round from outer space.
Formation of complex structures like snowflakes and hurricanes can be observed.
Saying that every living thing is a random mutation selected by nature is totally different. I used to believe it but it keeps bugging me that it might not be random. The example I give about photosynthesis,
demonstrates an ability to manipulate quantum coherence. Is it too far-fetched to suggest that mutation can be manipulated too? I prefer to wait and see as I anticipate quantum biology research to produce some shocking results.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteEspagnat: "The earth can be observed as round from outer space."
ReplyDeleteNot until the 20th century, it couldn't. And even then, the number of people who have been able to actually make that observation is measured in the dozens.
You said "I used to believe it but it keeps bugging me that it might not be random."
Bingo, you're on to something. Evolution isn't a random process. It's got some random variables, but so does almost any process that takes place in our universe. Having random variables doesn't make the whole process 'random' anymore than saying a football game is a random process just because it has a coin toss at the beginning.
Espagnat: "The example I give about photosynthesis, demonstrates an ability to manipulate quantum coherence."
An 'ability'? I'm confused by your word usage here - who or what has that ability? Are you suggesting that the plants are 'manipulating' quantum coherence?
In that same sense, some rocks 'utilize' atomic bonds at the quantum level to keep their atoms together. Does that suggest that rocks are designed? Perhaps they are. I prefer to wait and see as I anticipate quantum rockology research to produce some shocking results.
CH states:
ReplyDelete"it has been known for decades that variation is sensitive to experience and need."
Can you cite some references for this please?
Cornelius claims:
ReplyDelete"Mechanisms for large-scale change are speculative for it does not appear merely to be the result of repeated rounds of microevolution."
Not merely? But at least to some extent? Please be a bit more specific. What alternative to repeated "microevolution" do you have in mind?
It's always the same with creationists. They either don't understand - or they pretend they don't - that in order to make scientific progress one has to offer testable alternatives to mainstream theory. Don't like evolution? Fine, come up with something better.
From the textbook:
ReplyDelete"If the theory of evolution is not correct, on the other hand, then such orderly change is not expected."
I think all the authors are saying here is that orderly change is consistent with evolutionary theory, not that no other theory can possibly explain it.
Perhaps they could have added a caveat; something like:
"Note, such orderly change is also not necessarily inconsistent with some versions of Intelligent Design, certain religions (not excluding Buddhism and Hinduism) and the theory of hyperplombic self-stacking redundant hierarchies (which, as far as we know, is a theory held only by one Mr. Jack Sneed of Chelsea St., Kensington)."
The exegesis for the 2nd and 3rd chapters of Genesis causes nervousness, especially among mystics. Why? Because the real sin Adam and Eve committed (IN THE STORY) was anal sex--the mystery Saint Augustine almost solved 1600 years ago in his unscientific manner. (He thought their sin was normal penile/vaginal sex.) For more information google "WikiAnswers-What is wrong with Robert Hagedorn's Blogs"
ReplyDeletetokyojim, I have the patience of a saint in this regard.
ReplyDeleteI'm wishing for the day when even the most extreme people of faith have to recognize that god does not exist. I shan't be so much rubbing my hands with glee as I will be relieved that humanity has gotten over the worst pandemic of all time.
The Living World is the title?
ReplyDeleteI think a more befitting title would
have been: Smoke and Mirrors
Derick: Not until the 20th century, it couldn't. And even then, the number of people who have been able to actually make that observation is measured in the dozens.
ReplyDeleteBingo, you make my point. We have yet to observe the quantum mechanics of a mutation. Scientist working in this field have to believe that Darwin's theory may be wrong. That is the motivation. I believe that by the end of this decade we will know.
Derick:Evolution isn't a random process.
I'm referring to the mutation process.
Darwin's theory that a polar bear is white because it is by random chance that some bears were white and all the others died because they could not survive.
The motivation of quantum researchers is to prove that the mutation occurs not randomly but with a purpose. The first hurdle is prove that quantum coherence can occur and be exploited in biological system. This has been overcome by the discovery of quantum effects in photosynthesis.
Derick: Are you suggesting that the plants are 'manipulating' quantum coherence?
Yes, check out the following article from Scientific American:
"When It Comes to Photosynthesis, Plants Perform Quantum Computation"
Derick: In that same sense, some rocks 'utilize' atomic bonds at the quantum level to keep their atoms together. Does that suggest that rocks are designed? Perhaps they are. I prefer to wait and see as I anticipate quantum rockology research to produce some shocking results.
You know what, this is a hotly debated topic too in Quantum physics. Experiments show that particles behave differently when they are observed. Interpretations range from consciousness being a factor to many universes appearing every moment. Yes, experiments in this area will produce shocking results too. Anyway, this is another topic. By the way, I never used the word "designed". This is not about ideology or religion. It is about the truth.
Espagnat:
ReplyDelete"You know what, this is a hotly debated topic too in Quantum physics. Experiments show that particles behave differently when they are observed. Interpretations range from consciousness being a factor to many universes appearing every moment."
Sounds like Quantum Woo to me. How do you know that unobserved particles behave differently, since you haven't, um, observed them? I think you mean that it is necessary to interact with particles in order to measure their properties, and this interaction is what causes a change in their "behavior". No need to invoke an ill-defined "consciousness" to explain that.
Espagnat: I'm referring to the mutation process.
ReplyDeleteThere's good reason to believe that mutations are random with respect to fitness. See the Lederberg Experiment.
Espagnat: The motivation of quantum researchers is to prove that the mutation occurs not randomly but with a purpose. The first hurdle is prove that quantum coherence can occur and be exploited in biological system. This has been overcome by the discovery of quantum effects in photosynthesis.
Derick Childress: Are you suggesting that the plants are 'manipulating' quantum coherence?
Espagnat: Yes, check out the following article from Scientific American: "When It Comes to Photosynthesis, Plants Perform Quantum Computation"
The quantum computation just optimizes a wave function, something orthodox evolution is quite good at exploring. This has nothing to do with whether or not mutations are random with respect to fitness.
troy said:Sounds like Quantum Woo to me. How do you know that unobserved particles behave differently, since you haven't, um, observed them? I think you mean that it is necessary to interact with particles in order to measure their properties, and this interaction is what causes a change in their "behavior". No need to invoke an ill-defined "consciousness" to explain that.
ReplyDeleteYeah, you are not wrong but then there are many different opinions on this which is why I stated that it's hotly debated. For example,the founders of quantum mechanics debated the role of the observer, and of them, Wolfgang Pauli and Werner Heisenberg believed that it was the observer that produced collapse. This point of view, which was never fully endorsed by Niels Bohr, was denounced as mystical and anti-scientific by Albert Einstein. There are many more eminent scientist with contrasting views. The jury is still out there. Current experiments such as the one to create a quantum superposition of a virus may shed more light on this topic.
Zachriel said : There's good reason to believe that mutations are random with respect to fitness. See the Lederberg Experiment.
ReplyDeleteYes, I am aware of the Lederberg Experiment but that doesn't totally prove that mutation is random. There are possibly other explanations such as communication by electromagnetic radiation. However, the best experiment is to observe mutation on a quantum level which will answer all our questions.
Zachriel said : The quantum computation just optimizes a wave function, something orthodox evolution is quite good at exploring. This has nothing to do with whether or not mutations are random with respect to fitness.
I did not state that quantum computation proves that mutation are not random. I stated that the the motivation of quantum researchers is to prove that the mutation occurs not randomly but with a purpose. The first hurdle is prove that quantum coherence can occur and be exploited in biological system. This has been overcome by the discovery of quantum effects in photosynthesis.
Espagnat: Yes, I am aware of the Lederberg Experiment but that doesn't totally prove that mutation is random.
ReplyDeleteScience doesn't deal in "total proof," but evidence. The evidence strongly supports that the observed mutations were random with respect to fitness.
Espagnat: I stated that the the motivation of quantum researchers is to prove that the mutation occurs not randomly but with a purpose.
The researchers were attempting to test previous predictions of quantum coherence in photosynthesis in order to understand the high efficiency of the process.
Zachriel said : Science doesn't deal in "total proof," but evidence. The evidence strongly supports that the observed mutations were random with respect to fitness.
ReplyDeleteIn Science, evidence is everything, no doubt about it. However, there's still so much we do not know about mutation. Quantum biology is a new field which seeks better evidence and nobody can doubt that.
Zachriel said : The researchers were attempting to test previous predictions of quantum coherence in photosynthesis in order to understand the high efficiency of the process.
Yes that research is to understand the high efficiency of photosynthesis. My point is that this is a wondrous finding because prior to this people thought that at room temperature, the noisy environment would kill this kind of quantum interaction. This will pave the way to understanding more about mutation from a quantum perspective.
"You cannot make this stuff up."
ReplyDeleteCorrect, scientists don't make stuff up.
Espagnat: However, there's still so much we do not know about mutation.
ReplyDeleteYes, but you haven't presented any evidence that contradicts random mutation with regards to the particular case.
Espagnat: This will pave the way to understanding more about mutation from a quantum perspective.
The finding had nothing to do with mutation, so your point is unclear.
It is sad that Evolutionary Scientist do not understand Statistics. It is statistically impossible, or very improbable, for chemical evolution to cause life to arise. Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist Party took Evolution to its' ultimate conclusion which is the eradication of lesser races or species. This is what Evolution really teaches and its' true origins comes from Racism.
ReplyDeleteZachriel said: Yes, but you haven't presented any evidence that contradicts random mutation with regards to the particular case.
ReplyDeleteI've already stated that the Lederberg Experiment doesn't prove that mutation is random because it is possible that bacteria can communicate via electromagnetic radiation.
Espagnat: This will pave the way to understanding more about mutation from a quantum perspective.
Zachriel said: The finding had nothing to do with mutation, so your point is unclear.
This photosynthesis discovery shows that life has a tool that explores all of its options and then retroactively deciding the best choice. What does this all mean? Life is capable of cheating.
Based on this, it's not far-fetched to believe that mutation can also cheat.
Espagnat: I've already stated that the Lederberg Experiment doesn't prove that mutation is random because it is possible that bacteria can communicate via electromagnetic radiation.
ReplyDeleteThey may tweet, but the mutations are still uncorrelated with fitness.
Zachriel said: They may tweet, but the mutations are still uncorrelated with fitness.
ReplyDeleteIt's possible that the colonies from the stamped plate can only tweet to its corresponding colony in the original plate.
Espagnat: It's possible that the colonies from the stamped plate can only tweet to its corresponding colony in the original plate.
ReplyDeleteWhatever they tweet about, it doesn't lead to a correlation between mutation and fitness.
Zachriel: Whatever they tweet about, it doesn't lead to a correlation between mutation and fitness.
ReplyDeleteThe fitness of the bacteria on the original plate was only determined after the stamped plate was checked for resistance. It is possible that those which survive in the stamped plate will tweet a signal to their corresponding colonies on the original plate and this signal can activate antibiotic resistance.
Espagnat: It is possible that those which survive in the stamped plate will tweet a signal to their corresponding colonies on the original plate and this signal can activate antibiotic resistance.
ReplyDeleteWhy do some survive and some die on the stamped plate? How do they communicate?
The occurrence of resistance follows a probability distribution. See Luria–Delbrück experiment.
Zachriel: Why do some survive and some die on the stamped plate? How do they communicate?
ReplyDeleteThe occurrence of resistance follows a probability distribution. See Luria–Delbrück experiment.
It's possible that only the survived ones are fit enough to mutate. The problem is we do not know for sure that the mutation was already there before applying the antibiotics. Communication via electromagnetic radiation is possible.
The Luria–Delbrück experiment did not really rule out directed mutation. They were using a lethal selection and therefore the system did not really allow for a long period of time for the mutations after selection to arise. The Cairns experiment showed that some unusual results occurred if you used a non lethal selection.
We have to acknowledge that the fundamental limitations on our ability to separate between mutation selection and detection and I agree with Vasily Ogryzko that for the proper description of the Cairns' experiments, the formalism of quantum theory would be required.
Espagnat: The problem is we do not know for sure that the mutation was already there before applying the antibiotics.
ReplyDeleteWhile the Lederbergs had to develop their insights indirectly, today we know which mutations are responsible. We can sequence genomes. There are known rates of mutation. Guess what the results are. Yes, the mutations are there before exposure to antibiotics, and occur at the known rate of mutation.
Espagnat: Cairns experiment showed that some unusual results occurred if you used a non lethal selection.
No one has been able to demonstrate an unambiguous signal of directed mutation. (Most biologists agree that Cairns's results were due to varying mutation rates, and the amplifier effect.)
There are numerous problems with this post. I have addressed them here. He mischaracterizes evolutionary theory and, in some senses, the nature of scientific endeavor.
ReplyDeleteZachriel: We can sequence genomes. There are known rates of mutation. Guess what the results are. Yes, the mutations are there before exposure to antibiotics, and occur at the known rate of mutation.
ReplyDeleteStudies strongly indicate that microbes absorb and discard genes as required, in response to their environment. We also know that microbes communicate with each other and form communities.
The genome sequence opened the door to a vast labyrinth of new questions.
The more we know, the more we realize there is to know. We need a quantum approach to deal with this.
Zachriel: No one has been able to demonstrate an unambiguous signal of directed mutation. (Most biologists agree that Cairns's results were due to varying mutation rates, and the amplifier effect.)
Yes I agree that currently, nobody can demonstrate an unambiguous signal of directed mutation but Cairns' experiment raises some reasonal doubts which must be addressed.
We should not downplay the role of Quantum Mechanics in biological systems. I think a healthy scepticism is required here.
Espagnat: We also know that microbes communicate with each other and form communities.
ReplyDeleteNone of which relates to the subject at hand, the lack of correlation between mutation and fitness as seen in the Lederberg Experiment.
Espagnat: Cairns' experiment raises some reasonal doubts which must be addressed.
And Cairns's results have been subject to intense experimentation, but his original hypothesis has not found support.
Espagnat: I think a healthy scepticism is required here.
When scientists are skeptical, they devise experiments to test the limits of current knowledge. That's what science is all about.
You are free to speculate, but that doesn't lend credence to your unfounded speculations, quantum-woo, or in any way undermine well-established science. Let us know when you find something specific.
Zachriel: None of which relates to the subject at hand, the lack of correlation between mutation and fitness as seen in the Lederberg Experiment.
ReplyDeleteI've already stated it's possible that only the survived ones in the stamped plate are fit enough to mutate and communicate with their corresponding colonies from the original plate.
Zachriel: And Cairns's results have been subject to intense experimentation, but his original hypothesis has not found support.
Zachriel: You are free to speculate, but that doesn't lend credence to your unfounded speculations, quantum-woo, or in any way undermine well-established science. Let us know when you find something specific.
This is the same argument from people who said that quantum phenomena is not possible in biological systems. The discovery of quantum phenomena in photosynthesis really shut them up.
You are wrong about Cairns's results having no support. Check out "A QUANTUM-THEORETICAL APPROACH TO THE PHENOMENON" by Vasily V. Ogryzko and Johnjoe McFadden's book on Quantum Evolution.
Espagnat: I've already stated it's possible that only the survived ones in the stamped plate are fit enough to mutate and communicate with their corresponding colonies from the original plate.
ReplyDeleteAgain. It's not mystery. We can sequence the genomes. We can show that the mutations occur at the overall mutation rate.
Espagnat: This is the same argument from people who said that quantum phenomena is not possible in biological systems.
They were testing for quantum coherence, which had already been suggested by previous research. What was unexpected was the *persistence* of quantum coherence in a dynamic, disordered system. That has nothing to do with random mutation, nor have you provided evidence or an argument of any sort that undermines the basic finding.
Espagnat: The discovery of quantum phenomena in photosynthesis really shut them up.
They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
Zachriel: Again. It's not mystery. We can sequence the genomes. We can show that the mutations occur at the overall mutation rate.
ReplyDeleteI was just giving one explanation based on the old methods employed by Lederberg. The Lederberg experiment does not really rule out directed mutation because it's a lethal selection.
Zachriel : They were testing for quantum coherence, which had already been suggested by previous research. What was unexpected was the *persistence* of quantum coherence in a dynamic, disordered system. That has nothing to do with random mutation, nor have you provided evidence or an argument of any sort that undermines the basic finding.
Zachriel: They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
Ok, so you are equating Bozo the Clown with Quantum Biology. I can see history repeating. From the early 1960s, molecular biology was increasingly seen as a threat to the traditional core of evolutionary biology. They call it the "molecular wars". Looks like now we are having the "quantum wars".
The premise is simple. Life is a molecular process; molecular processes operate according to the quantum playbook; therefore, life is a quantum process.
An early idea about quantum effects in biology was proposed by Herbert Fröhlich of the University of Liverpool, who in 1968 suggested that the modes of vibration of some membranes in the cell might exhibit the phenomenon of a Bose–Einstein condensate.
The first publication on Quantum Evolution, which appeared in a peer review journal, is by Vasily Ogryzko. Biologist Johnjoe McFadden and the physicist Jim Al-Khalili subsequently published their own theory in 1999 to propose a quantum model of adaptive change, in which environmentally stressed bacteria seem able to select favourable mutations that boost their survivability. McFadden published his book "Quantum Evolution" in 2000.
Although the previous examples have been in the literature for many years, they have not
led to a widespread acceptance that quantum physics is important for biology, mainly due to the assumption that the thermal noise of biological systems seemed too great to allow for quantum weirdness. This is one of the reasons that many scientists have considered quantum biology both unlikely and unscientific. The discovery of quantum phenomena in photosyntesis silence the critics.
In the meantime, scientists will continue looking for more evidence of quantum biology, which has been also been posited in the structure of DNA.
Espagnat: I was just giving one explanation based on the old methods employed by Lederberg.
ReplyDeleteNo single experiment is ever definitive. Lederberg built on Luria–Delbrück. And while their results were confirmed and extended, your 'explanation' was already contradicted when you wrote it.
Espagnat: Ok, so you are equating Bozo the Clown with Quantum Biology.
Not at all. Just such statements as this:
Espagnat: I am aware of the Lederberg Experiment but that doesn't totally prove that mutation is random. There are possibly other explanations such as communication by electromagnetic radiation.
But there is a great deal of confirmation that the mutations are uncorrelated with fitness, including modern sequencing data; and not one iota to support your position. Speculation is all well and good, but just waving your hands vaguely at quantum effects, all the while ignoring what is known, doesn't make an argument.
Zachriel: But there is a great deal of confirmation that the mutations are uncorrelated with fitness, including modern sequencing data; and not one iota to support your position. Speculation is all well and good, but just waving your hands vaguely at quantum effects, all the while ignoring what is known, doesn't make an argument.
ReplyDeleteAgain. Lederberg and Luria–Delbrück experiments are based on lethal experiments. The Cairns experiment showed that some unusual results occurred if you used a non lethal selection.
You were wrong when you said that Cairns had no support. I asked to you check out the works of
Vasily V. Ogryzko and Johnjoe Mcfadden. However you refused to give a rebuttal on this point.
Espagnat: The Cairns experiment showed that some unusual results occurred if you used a non lethal selection.
ReplyDeleteThis was responded to above. Cairns' hypothesis has not been confirmed; nor did he hypothesize an intelligent cause. (There is evidence of a slight look-ahead capability in evolution, due to mutations in the protein synthesis process. Whitehead, The look-ahead effect of phenotypic mutations, Biology Direct 2008.) But that is all irrelevant to your statement that we took issue with.
Espagnat: I am aware of the Lederberg Experiment but that doesn't totally prove that mutation is random. There are possibly other explanations such as communication by electromagnetic radiation.
Take a wild guess. Put your 'theory' to the test. Would genome sequencing show that the mutations involved would occur at the background rate of mutations in bacteria that are unexposed to antibiotics? And when will you begin your investigation?
Espagnat: During photosynthesis, plants are able to simultaneously sample all the potential energy pathways and choose the most efficient one. This is incredible and suggest a kind of intelligence which we do not know about.
No. It doesn't. Orthodox evolution can explore such fitness landscapes.
Espagnat: I asked to you check out the works of Vasily V. Ogryzko and Johnjoe Mcfadden.
Ogryzko and Mcfadden's speculative hypothesis doesn't support your claim of a "kind of intelligence" either.
I accept that I should not doubt Lederberg's ingenuity but that doesn't change the fact that his experiment is based on lethal selection and therefore not relevant because the case for Quantum Evolution is based on non lethal selection as demonstrated by Cairns.
ReplyDeleteZachriel: Cairns' hypothesis has not been confirmed; nor did he hypothesize an intelligent cause.
Zachriel:Ogryzko and Mcfadden's speculative hypothesis doesn't support your claim of a "kind of intelligence" either.
I never said that mutation has a kind of intelligence and I never used the word intelligent when describing quantum evolution.
I was just suggesting plant intelligence in photosynthesis. Plant intelligence is an ongoing scientific field totally not related to evolution and it's not supernatural.
As I have mentioned, I brought up photosynthesis only to show that it's very possible that quantum effects can be ubiquitous in biology.
When I asked you whether you think Quantum Biology is nonsense, you said no. Well, people into Quantum Biology believe that mutation is driven by quantum effect and we have Ogryzko and Mcfadden's hypothesis which supports adaptive mutation based on Carns' experiments. Yeah, other explanation like the "look ahead" effect exist but Ogryzko and Mcfadden's ideas cannot be rule out.
Espagnat: I was just suggesting plant intelligence in photosynthesis.
ReplyDeleteThere's intelligence in the lowliest bacterium that avoids toxins and seeks sources of food. Evolution is posited as a explanation for this and the intelligenc of beetles and humans. And evolution itself can be said to be an intelligent process. Not sure if you had a larger point to make, or not.
Zachriel: There's intelligence in the lowliest bacterium that avoids toxins and seeks sources of food. Evolution is posited as a explanation for this and the intelligenc of beetles and humans. And evolution itself can be said to be an intelligent process. Not sure if you had a larger point to make, or not.
ReplyDeleteNo. The only point I want to make is that we need an entirely different approach if we want to probe the mysteries of life and quantum mechanics being the most fundamental theory of matter, is poised to help us in this regard.
As long as my approach to the adaptive mutation has been mentioned here, I suggest to look at these publications too:
ReplyDeletehttp://fr.arxiv.org/abs/0704.0034
http://fr.arxiv.org/abs/0704.3957
http://fr.arxiv.org/abs/0802.2271
http://fr.arxiv.org/abs/0805.4316
http://fr.arxiv.org/abs/0906.4279
http://fr.arxiv.org/abs/0912.3093
Disgusting.
ReplyDeletehttp://physicalismisdead.blogspot.com