tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post2315531982670279328..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Back to School: Do You Know What Your Child is Learning?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-15322776469993820022012-02-08T17:16:39.669-08:002012-02-08T17:16:39.669-08:00Disgusting.
http://physicalismisdead.blogspot.com...Disgusting.<br /><br />http://physicalismisdead.blogspot.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-66907900695164597802011-06-02T00:07:17.361-07:002011-06-02T00:07:17.361-07:00As long as my approach to the adaptive mutation ha...As long as my approach to the adaptive mutation has been mentioned here, I suggest to look at these publications too:<br /><br />http://fr.arxiv.org/abs/0704.0034<br />http://fr.arxiv.org/abs/0704.3957<br />http://fr.arxiv.org/abs/0802.2271<br />http://fr.arxiv.org/abs/0805.4316<br />http://fr.arxiv.org/abs/0906.4279<br />http://fr.arxiv.org/abs/0912.3093Vasilyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06402766630506075130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-53300697369906969402010-08-03T08:53:17.120-07:002010-08-03T08:53:17.120-07:00Zachriel: There's intelligence in the lowliest...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.<br /><br />No. 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.Espagnathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01349385556589100225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-83527756430683171352010-08-03T06:14:06.188-07:002010-08-03T06:14:06.188-07:00Espagnat: I was just suggesting plant intelligence...<b>Espagnat</b>: <i>I was just suggesting plant intelligence in photosynthesis. </i><br /><br />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.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-3762275491089978352010-08-02T11:56:57.831-07:002010-08-02T11:56:57.831-07:00I accept that I should not doubt Lederberg's i...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.<br /><br />Zachriel: Cairns' hypothesis has not been confirmed; nor did he hypothesize an intelligent cause.<br /><br />Zachriel:Ogryzko and Mcfadden's speculative hypothesis doesn't support your claim of a "kind of intelligence" either.<br /><br />I never said that mutation has a kind of intelligence and I never used the word intelligent when describing quantum evolution. <br />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. <br />As I have mentioned, I brought up photosynthesis only to show that it's very possible that quantum effects can be ubiquitous in biology.<br /><br />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.Espagnathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01349385556589100225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-82659367502998619362010-08-01T06:27:36.539-07:002010-08-01T06:27:36.539-07:00Espagnat: The Cairns experiment showed that some u...<b>Espagnat</b>: <i>The Cairns experiment showed that some unusual results occurred if you used a non lethal selection. </i><br /><br />This 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, <i>The look-ahead effect of phenotypic mutations</i>, Biology Direct 2008.) But that is all irrelevant to your statement that we took issue with. <br /><br /><b>Espagnat</b>: <i>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. </i><br /><br />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? <br /><br /><b>Espagnat</b>: <i>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. </i><br /><br />No. It doesn't. Orthodox evolution can explore such fitness landscapes. <br /><br /><b>Espagnat</b>: <i>I asked to you check out the works of Vasily V. Ogryzko and Johnjoe Mcfadden. </i><br /><br />Ogryzko and Mcfadden's speculative hypothesis doesn't support your claim of a "<i>kind of intelligence</i>" either.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-71090239774226614802010-07-31T21:31:14.079-07:002010-07-31T21:31:14.079-07:00Zachriel: But there is a great deal of confirmatio...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. <br /><br />Again. 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. <br />You were wrong when you said that Cairns had no support. I asked to you check out the works of <br />Vasily V. Ogryzko and Johnjoe Mcfadden. However you refused to give a rebuttal on this point.Espagnathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01349385556589100225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-67179727552778585032010-07-31T18:16:06.555-07:002010-07-31T18:16:06.555-07:00Espagnat: I was just giving one explanation based ...<b>Espagnat</b>: <i>I was just giving one explanation based on the old methods employed by Lederberg. </i><br /><br />No 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. <br /><br /><b>Espagnat</b>: <i>Ok, so you are equating Bozo the Clown with Quantum Biology. </i><br /><br />Not at all. Just such statements as this: <br /><br /><b>Espagnat</b>: <i>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. </i><br /><br />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.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-54986347942663156182010-07-31T11:17:29.039-07:002010-07-31T11:17:29.039-07:00Zachriel: Again. It's not mystery. We can sequ...Zachriel: Again. It's not mystery. We can sequence the genomes. We can show that the mutations occur at the overall mutation rate. <br /><br />I 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.<br /><br /><br />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. <br /><br />Zachriel: They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. <br /><br />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".<br /><br />The premise is simple. Life is a molecular process; molecular processes operate according to the quantum playbook; therefore, life is a quantum process.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />Although the previous examples have been in the literature for many years, they have not <br />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.<br /><br />In the meantime, scientists will continue looking for more evidence of quantum biology, which has been also been posited in the structure of DNA.Espagnathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01349385556589100225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-46386092161746803522010-07-31T07:11:10.135-07:002010-07-31T07:11:10.135-07:00Espagnat: I've already stated it's possibl...<b>Espagnat</b>: <i>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. </i><br /><br />Again. It's not mystery. We can sequence the genomes. We can show that the mutations occur at the overall mutation rate. <br /><br /><b>Espagnat</b>: <i>This is the same argument from people who said that quantum phenomena is not possible in biological systems. </i><br /><br />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. <br /><br /><b>Espagnat</b>: <i>The discovery of quantum phenomena in photosynthesis really shut them up. </i><br /><br /><i>They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. </i>Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-45033466989516660272010-07-31T06:23:04.217-07:002010-07-31T06:23:04.217-07:00Zachriel: None of which relates to the subject at ...Zachriel: None of which relates to the subject at hand, the lack of correlation between mutation and fitness as seen in the Lederberg Experiment. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />Zachriel: And Cairns's results have been subject to intense experimentation, but his original hypothesis has not found support. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br />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.Espagnathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01349385556589100225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-91223453818648100342010-07-31T05:27:25.840-07:002010-07-31T05:27:25.840-07:00Espagnat: We also know that microbes communicate w...<b>Espagnat</b>: <i>We also know that microbes communicate with each other and form communities. </i><br /><br />None of which relates to the subject at hand, the lack of correlation between mutation and fitness as seen in the Lederberg Experiment. <br /><br /><b>Espagnat</b>: <i>Cairns' experiment raises some reasonal doubts which must be addressed. </i><br /><br />And Cairns's results have been subject to intense experimentation, but his original hypothesis has not found support. <br /><br /><b>Espagnat</b>: <i>I think a healthy scepticism is required here. </i><br /><br />When scientists are skeptical, they devise experiments to test the limits of current knowledge. That's what science is all about. <br /><br />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.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-54117834737449036082010-07-31T02:18:13.036-07:002010-07-31T02:18:13.036-07:00Zachriel: We can sequence genomes. There are known...Zachriel: 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. <br /><br />Studies 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.<br />The genome sequence opened the door to a vast labyrinth of new questions.<br />The more we know, the more we realize there is to know. We need a quantum approach to deal with this.<br /><br /><br />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.) <br /><br /><br />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.<br />We should not downplay the role of Quantum Mechanics in biological systems. I think a healthy scepticism is required here.Espagnathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01349385556589100225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-60928032072463530742010-07-30T06:13:43.894-07:002010-07-30T06:13:43.894-07:00There are numerous problems with this post. I hav...There are numerous problems with this post. I have addressed them <a href="http://scienceandcreation.blogspot.com/2010/07/cornelius-hunter-pseudogenes-and-nature.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>. He mischaracterizes evolutionary theory and, in some senses, the nature of scientific endeavor.Jimpithecushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10143519573877156940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-31422095980927137122010-07-30T05:10:10.734-07:002010-07-30T05:10:10.734-07:00Espagnat: The problem is we do not know for sure t...<b>Espagnat</b>: <i>The problem is we do not know for sure that the mutation was already there before applying the antibiotics. </i><br /><br />While 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. <br /><br /><b>Espagnat</b>: <i>Cairns experiment showed that some unusual results occurred if you used a non lethal selection. </i><br /><br />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.)Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-38920107541259165092010-07-30T02:30:07.672-07:002010-07-30T02:30:07.672-07:00Zachriel: Why do some survive and some die on the ...Zachriel: Why do some survive and some die on the stamped plate? How do they communicate? <br />The occurrence of resistance follows a probability distribution. See Luria–Delbrück experiment.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br />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.Espagnathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01349385556589100225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-83121370023203800702010-07-29T17:28:10.008-07:002010-07-29T17:28:10.008-07:00Espagnat: It is possible that those which survive ...<b>Espagnat</b>: <i>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. </i><br /><br />Why do some survive and some die on the stamped plate? How do they communicate? <br /><br />The occurrence of resistance follows a probability distribution. See Luria–Delbrück experiment.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-71202899618293088142010-07-29T13:59:37.426-07:002010-07-29T13:59:37.426-07:00Zachriel: Whatever they tweet about, it doesn'...Zachriel: Whatever they tweet about, it doesn't lead to a correlation between mutation and fitness. <br /><br />The 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.Espagnathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01349385556589100225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-57794351066625889582010-07-29T04:48:11.362-07:002010-07-29T04:48:11.362-07:00Espagnat: It's possible that the colonies from...<b>Espagnat</b>: <i>It's possible that the colonies from the stamped plate can only tweet to its corresponding colony in the original plate. </i><br /><br />Whatever they tweet about, it doesn't lead to a correlation between mutation and fitness.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-49946759754285449892010-07-28T22:50:50.870-07:002010-07-28T22:50:50.870-07:00Zachriel said: They may tweet, but the mutations a...Zachriel said: They may tweet, but the mutations are still uncorrelated with fitness.<br /><br />It's possible that the colonies from the stamped plate can only tweet to its corresponding colony in the original plate.Espagnathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01349385556589100225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-90296234037999032202010-07-28T12:41:36.832-07:002010-07-28T12:41:36.832-07:00Espagnat: I've already stated that the Lederbe...<b>Espagnat</b>: <i>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. </i><br /><br />They may tweet, but the mutations are still uncorrelated with fitness.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-81557363097902281732010-07-28T12:18:25.782-07:002010-07-28T12:18:25.782-07:00Zachriel said: Yes, but you haven't presented ...Zachriel said: Yes, but you haven't presented any evidence that contradicts random mutation with regards to the particular case. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />Espagnat: This will pave the way to understanding more about mutation from a quantum perspective. <br /><br />Zachriel said: The finding had nothing to do with mutation, so your point is unclear. <br /><br />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.<br />Based on this, it's not far-fetched to believe that mutation can also cheat.Espagnathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01349385556589100225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-4475073479839926852010-07-28T08:01:22.670-07:002010-07-28T08:01:22.670-07:00It is sad that Evolutionary Scientist do not under...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.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16496342284990995540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-92030513701526429132010-07-28T05:28:03.477-07:002010-07-28T05:28:03.477-07:00Espagnat: However, there's still so much we do...<b>Espagnat</b>: <i>However, there's still so much we do not know about mutation. </i><br /><br />Yes, but you haven't presented any evidence that contradicts random mutation with regards to the particular case. <br /><br /><b>Espagnat</b>: <i>This will pave the way to understanding more about mutation from a quantum perspective. </i><br /><br />The finding had nothing to do with mutation, so your point is unclear.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-62130646210510139622010-07-28T01:56:15.656-07:002010-07-28T01:56:15.656-07:00"You cannot make this stuff up."
Correc..."You cannot make this stuff up."<br /><br />Correct, scientists don't make stuff up.Bill Biggehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14597607768565143740noreply@blogger.com