Quantum evolution? Not random?

[abskebabs]

I have already posted this in other threads in the biology section of these forums but didn't get many responses. This is why I'm posting it here as I assume people reading it may know a lot more about how these processes could work[and won't be scared off by the word Quantum] [To be honest I'm no Quantum physics expert by any stretch of the imagination, which is why I would be very grateful to know peolpe's opinion on this].

 

Basically I'm proposing that evolution as we know it is not caused by so called random occurences, but is caused directly by organisms gaining information about their enviroment and adapting because of it. For example from the website:

http://www.surrey.ac.uk/qe/Outline.htm

 

I got the information that:

"If these particles can enter quantum states then DNA may be able to slip into the quantum multiverse and sample multiple mutations simultaneously. But what makes it drop out of the quantum world? Most physicists agree that systems enter quantum states when they become isolated from their environment and pop out of the multiverse when they exchange significant amounts of energy with their environment, an interaction that is termed ‘quantum measurement’. Cells may enter quantum states when they are unable to divide and replicate – perhaps they can’t utilise a particular substrate in their environment. They may collapse out of those quantum states when their DNA superposition includes a mutation that allows them to grow and replicate once more. In this way the environment interacts with, and performs a quantum measurement on the cell, to precipitate advantageous mutations. From our viewpoint, inhabiting only one universe, the cell appears to ‘choose’ certain mutations.

 

But is there any evidence for this? When John Cairns of the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston set out to test the dogma that mutations occur at the same rate whether or not they provided an advantage, he found that things were not so simple. Cairns examined bacteria that were deficient in their ability to utilise the milk sugar lactose. When he exposed these bacteria to conditions in which lactose was the only food source, they starved. The cells did not die but instead went into a kind of suspended animation state, called dormancy. Dormancy was a well-known phenomenon so Cairns was not surprised to find that his bacteria managed to survive in this state for many weeks. What did come as a surprise was the discovery that, after a lag period of a day or two, several of his bacterial cells managed to grow and replicate. These replicating cells had acquired a mutation that allowed them to feed on the lactose. What was even more surprising was his observation that the cells only acquired these lactose-eating mutations when lactose was available"

 

The way these organisms find out about their surroundings has a lot to do with how the macromolecular world interacts with the quantum world and this involves quantum entanglement. There are also 2 website addresses showing work by russian researchers on precisely how this works. I didn't understand a lot of the jargon used but I'm sure there are people who will.

 

http://www.emergentmind.org/gariaevI2.htm

http://www.emergentmind.org/gariaevI3.htm

[swansont]

When John Cairns of the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston set out to test the dogma that mutations occur at the same rate whether or not they provided an advantage' date=' he found that things were not so simple. Cairns examined bacteria that were deficient in their ability to utilise the milk sugar lactose. When he exposed these bacteria to conditions in which lactose was the only food source, they starved. The cells did not die but instead went into a kind of suspended animation state, called dormancy. Dormancy was a well-known phenomenon so Cairns was not surprised to find that his bacteria managed to survive in this state for many weeks. What did come as a surprise was the discovery that, after a lag period of a day or two, several of his bacterial cells managed to grow and replicate. These replicating cells had acquired a mutation that allowed them to feed on the lactose. What was even more surprising was his observation that the cells only acquired these lactose-eating mutations when lactose was available"

[/quote']

 

One explanation is that when the bacteria are stressed excessiviely, they mutate faster (change or die), so the starving bacteria got those mutations, but they got others, too. Even though you'd end up with some detrimental mutations, it's better than the alternative. hypermutation

[abskebabs]

I see the logic in your explanation, and from your reference to hypermutation it may be a fair explanation for this pheneomenon if certain genes are can mutate very readily to adapt to a change in enviroment. It just doesn't seem to make sense to me that this kind of beneficial mutation, which should be highly unlikely; occurs at such a fast rate to produce the entire gene to code for a very specific protein namely lactose.

[Martin]

Abs,

 

Personally (1) I'm not qualified to judge about this and (2) I'm skeptical.

 

Sorry to disappoint you.

On the positive side, I did a quick check of the guy's credentials and found they are quite good:

 

"...brought up in the UK. He obtained his PhD at Imperial College London and went on to work on human genetic diseases and then infectious diseases, at the University of Surrey in Guildford, UK. For more than a decade, Professor McFadden has specialised in examining the genetics of microbes such as the agents of tuberculosis and meningitis. He has published more than 100 articles in scientific journals on subjects as wide-ranging as bacterial genetics, tuberculosis, idiopathic diseases and computer modelling of evolution and has edited a book on the genetics of mycobacteria. He has lectured extensively in the UK, Europe, the USA and Japan and his work has been featured in radio, television and national newspaper articles. His present post is Professor of Molecular Genetics at the University of Surrey. He lives in London and is married with a young son.

 

Writing

Professor McFadden wrote the popular science book, Quantum Evolution, published in the UK by HarperCollins in 2001, in the US by Norton in 2002 and currently being translated for publication by Kyoritsu Shuppan in Japan in 2003. The book examines the role of quantum mechanics in life, evolution and consciousness.

 

Professor McFadden also writes articles regularly for the Guardian newspaper in the UK on topics as varied as quantum mechanics, evolution and genetically modified crops. He has also reviewed books for the Guardian. The Washington Post and Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung have also published articles written by Professor McFadden."

 

Here is his homepage:

http://www.surrey.ac.uk/SBMS/ACADEMICS_homepage/mcfadden_johnjoe/

=================

I guess that you also checked to see who McFadden is. In general terms he is a successful mainstream academic and ALSO a successful popular science writer.

 

It is hard to judge someone merely by these superficial measures---but it is all I have. You just told us about him. I have never seen his book. I only just glanced at the brief online summary of the 1998 paper

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T2K-3WHKRCP-4&_coverDate=06%2F30%2F1999&_alid=8659908&_rdoc=1&_fmt=summary&_orig=search&_qd=1&_cdi=4921&_sort=d&_acct=C000009958&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=121707&md5=7af163b1fd912ea4034c94d41561bc4f

 

the article is called A quantum mechanical model of adaptive mutation One might try to find out if any other scientist has CITED that article as a reference in any followup articles on this idea.

 

Elsevier's "science direct" is an online publisher---not paper---but it is peer-reviewed. They only show the short abstract summary and charge $30 to see the whole article. (that is too much to bet on a dark horse---most science ideas turn out to be wrong and this horse is very dark)

 

Notice that the language in the abstract summary is very tentative. something is not completely understood---there are several possible explanations---here is one possible model

 

that is all fine, the only danger signal is that (unless you know of some I don't) there arent any followups. McFadden has published something like 100 papers---he is prolific---what is wrong with this idea that it seems to have withered on the vine? Why is the most recent, or the only, scientific journal article he wrote something from 1998? I may be missing something, since i didnt spend much time looking.

 

Sorry to disappoint you. this is very far removed from the kind of things I usually think about and study, but I will keep it in mind and maybe something more will turn up.

 

don't get discouraged

keep asking questions

[abskebabs]

Thanks a lot for the feedback Martin, I'm grateful for it. To be fair with you I didn't try to find out that much about McFadden, though I diod have a brief look at the links at the surrey university site you just posted earlier.

 

Also on a more personal point; I was pleasantly surprised that Jim Al-Khalili, the author of Quantum a guide for the perplexed, a book I recently purchased:-) . I've only read about a third of the book but I do remember when I was arbitrarily flicking through the pages at the store that it had some pages related to quantum phenomenon in biology and even a short section titled Quantum neurodynamics.

 

I will elaborate more on what he talks about in these sections later, however another researcher and his research group people should have a look at is Dr. Peter Gariaev. I know that he was an invited guest speaker to give a lecture on the Anticipatory Quantum Biosphere Learning from Nature and I found this out on the British computer society website which mentions the lectures were in 2001. The address where I found this was:

 

http://www.bcs.org.uk/siggroup/cyber/casys2001.htm

 

I also urge anyone reading this to have a look at the following papers I have already made links to in this thread, as well as one that I haven't, and tell me what they think of the physics involved. Is it sound?

 

http://www.emergentmind.org/gariaevI2.htm

http://www.emergentmind.org/gariaevI3.htm

 

http://www.rialian.com/rnboyd/dna-wave.doc