Lee Spetner on evolution and information

_{Denyse O'Leary

July 26, 2017

Evolution, Information, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

From Lee Spetner, author of The Evolution Revolution at True Origin:

Many years ago I published a paper that pointed out that the evolutionary process can be characterized as a transmission of information from the environment to the genome (Spetner 1964). Somewhat later I wrote that there is no known random mutation that adds information to the genome (Spetner 1997). This statement in one form or another has found its way into the debate on evolution versus creation. Evolutionists have distorted the statement to attack it, as in Claim CB102, where Isaak has written his target for attack as, ‘Mutations are random noise; they do not add information. Evolution cannot cause an increase in information.’ Perhaps something like this statement was indeed made in an argument by someone, but Isaak has distorted its meaning. For his ‘refutation’ he writes the following 4 points (the references are his citations): More.

See also: Lee Spetner answers his critics

Comments

Dionisio: "BTW, in the second statement ‘if’ should read ‘is’, right?! Yes. :)gpuccio_{July 28, 2017
July
07
Jul
28
28
2017
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT}

ET - can you summarise what Spetner means by information? Even if I did try to get his book, it would take some time to arrive (and be quite expensive). On non-random mutation and mutation rates, this is the essence of Spetner's argument from the piece:
Transposable elements (TE) in the genome are known to cause complex mutations when they are activated. Their activation is not random; they are activated by stress.
So, under stress TEs are activated, and they can cause mutations. I don't think this is controversial. But that means that the mutation rate is increased (and also that it is not random over the genome, as IIRC TEs need specific short sequences to insert into). But he gives no evidence that they are directed: they'll insert into any target sequence, regardless of effect on phenotype. Ogf course, it's possible that Spetner is using "non-random" and "directed" to mean that TEs will insert into specific sequences, and that the rate of insertion can vary, but that would seem to be a much milder claim.Bob O'H_{July 28, 2017
July
07
Jul
28
28
2017
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT}

gpuccio @7, Thank you for the excellent explanation. As usual, I have to chew and digest it --including the information in the link you provided-- before I can claim that I understand it well. Definitely this is a very interesting and important topic. Perhaps your comment @7 --with a few editorial adjustments-- could be the OP for a separate discussion thread? BTW, in the second statement 'if' should read 'is', right? I think this is a stong candidate for a discussion topic at our dinner in a restaurant by the littoral in Palermo. :)Dionisio_{July 28, 2017
July
07
Jul
28
28
2017
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H:
Inevitably he then leaves the term ‘information’ undefined and impossibly vague.
Read his books. It's all there.
Oh, and he fails to distinguish between mutations being non-random and variation in mutation rates.
Just saying it doesn't make it so. You actually have to make your case, which you haven't.ET_{July 28, 2017
July
07
Jul
28
28
2017
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT}

Dionisio: My idea is: we have two different models where there seems to be an interface between a consciousness and a physical object. The first if us: our consciousness, our subjective representations, and our objective brain. Nobody can deny that there is a two way connection between subjective representations and objective events in the brain. Now, if we don't accept the unsupported idea of strong AI theory, that subjective experiences arise from the complexities of configuration of objective events (and I certainly don't accept it, for a lot of reasons), now we have to explain how subjective representations interact with physical matter in the brain. The idea that a quantum interface can be the solution is not certainly mine: it goes back to Eccles. Here is the abstract of an article by Beck on the subject: https://www.neuroquantology.com/index.php/journal/article/view/168 "In the struggle about the role of monism and dualism as basic concepts of the mind-brain relation the indeterminacy of quantum events has led an increasing number of authors to postulate quantum brain dynamics as the key towards a scientific understanding of consciousness. In most cases some specific form of macroscopic quantum states in the brain are invoked without giving details for their occurrence or persistence. This raises immediately the question how such states could survive thermal fluctuations in the hot and wet brain environment. In this paper we present a model for a quantum mechanical trigger which regulates synaptic exocytosis, the regulator for ordered brain activity. The model is based on a quantum mechanical tunnelling process which is stable against thermal fluctuations and consistent with the physiological conditions of the synaptic membrane." OK. This is a well established field of speculation, even if certainly controversial, in physics (see also Penrose), neurophysiology and philosophy. The extension of this concept to biological design is more a personal speculation, even if I am sure that others have suggested something more or less similar. My idea is: once we accept a design explanation for biological information (and I certainly do), beyond the problem of who the designer is, there is the important problem of how did he interact with biological matter. Indeed, the whole concept of design implementation implies some physical interaction with the physical objects that need to receive the designed configuration. Of course, when the designer acts through a physical body, like in the case of humans, there is no problem at all: the basic interface between human consciousness and the brain and body (whatever its nature) is enough to convey the information to the human body, which is perfectly capable to transmit that information to the objects to be designed. But, in the case of biological design, the scenario of designers with a physical body is not the most appealing, except for those who believe in aliens as biological designers. In all other reasonable scenarios, be it a god or some conscious force, or some non physical kind of beings, the problem arises of how a conscious designer, who has not a physical body as we conceive it, can interact with matter. So, my reasoning is: this scenario is not so different form the scenario of our human consciousness interacting with the brain. Again, we have a conscious being and, on the other end, a physical reality: not the human brain and body, but biological matter. So, I believe that we can invoke a similar hypothesis: a quantum interface that models events that follow the intrinsic quantum laws of probability, but use them to generate functional states, without apparently violating the laws themselves. Now, in the case of the human brain interface, the idea is that consciousness interacts through quantum events in the neurons, especially synapses, through some control of pseudo-random events. In the biological interface, we equally need random or pseudo-random events that can be modeled to functional states without violating physical laws. IMO, the best candidates are guided apparently random mutations and random variation in general, and more specifically pseudo-random variation through guided transposon activity. When transposons move in the genome, we think that the results are random. But they could well be guided at quantum level. Quantum events can easily change critical macroscopic states, in particular circumstances. Well, this is my general idea. It's, of course, highly speculative, but I cannot think of better models, with what we know at present.gpuccio_{July 28, 2017
July
07
Jul
28
28
2017
03:35 AM
3
03
35
AM
PDT}

Hm. Spetner includes this quote from Isaak:
Creationists get by with this claim [that mutations don't add information] only by leaving the term 'information' undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting.
Inevitably he then leaves the term 'information' undefined and impossibly vague. It may be constantly shifting, but because it's impossibly vague I can't tell. Oh, and he fails to distinguish between mutations being non-random and variation in mutation rates.Bob O'H_{July 28, 2017
July
07
Jul
28
28
2017
02:40 AM
2
02
40
AM
PDT}

ET: No, I have not read his books, but I am tempted! :) Yes, I know that transposons contain the code for the enzymes required to move the TE’s around.gpuccio_{July 28, 2017
July
07
Jul
28
28
2017
02:03 AM
2
02
03
AM
PDT}

gpuccio @2: How would the quantum interface work in the context of transposon activity?Dionisio_{July 27, 2017
July
07
Jul
27
27
2017
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PDT}

gpuccio- Have you read his books "Not By Chance" and "the Evolution Revolution"? Transposons contain the code for two of the enzymes required to move the TE's around.ET_{July 27, 2017
July
07
Jul
27
27
2017
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT}

Very interesting article. It is specially important what Spetner says about the adaptive role of Transposons. I absolutely agree. Indeed, I do believe that transposons are not only involved in environmental adaptation, as suggested by Spetner, but that they can also be tools of design in the generation of completely new functional information (see for example what is known about their role in the emergence of new genes). Transposon activity, so apparently random, is the best context to allow some intelligent guide, possibly through a quantum interface.gpuccio_{July 27, 2017
July
07
Jul
27
27
2017
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT}

Gene duplication? Really? Did the genes' binding sites get duplicated too? If not then the newly duplicated gene will need one before it can be expressed. It also has to land on a spot along the chromosome that isn't buried in the spool. And if that isn't bad enough Dr Wagner's book "Arrival of the Fittest" says that even changing the DNA of a gene may not change the protein produced. This is due to the degeneracy of the genetic code along with the degeneracy of the proteome. He even says that two proteins with the same shape do not need the same DNA sequence. Add to all of that the paper witing for two mutations and it is clear that gene duplication is out as a blind and mindless processET_{July 26, 2017
July
07
Jul
26
26
2017
08:11 PM
8
08
11
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply