Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Can quantum mechanics explain spontaneous mutation of DNA?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Despite otherwise “astounding precision”?

The molecules of life, DNA, replicate with astounding precision, yet this process is not immune to mistakes and can lead to mutations. Using sophisticated computer modelling, a team of physicists and chemists at the University of Surrey have shown that such errors in copying can arise due to the strange rules of the quantum world.

The two strands of the famous DNA double helix are linked together by subatomic particles called protons – the nuclei of atoms of hydrogen – which provide the glue that bonds molecules called bases together. These so-called hydrogen bonds are like the rungs of a twisted ladder that makes up the double helix structure discovered in 1952 by James Watson and Francis Crick based on the work of Rosalind Franklin and Maurice Wilkins.

Normally, these DNA bases (called A, C, T and G) follow strict rules on how they bond together: A always bonds to T and C always to G. This strict pairing is determined by the molecules’ shape, fitting them together like pieces in a jigsaw, but if the nature of the hydrogen bonds changes slightly, this can cause the pairing rule to break down, leading to the wrong bases being linked and hence a mutation. Although predicted by Crick and Watson, it is only now that sophisticated computational modelling has been able to quantify the process accurately.

University of Surrey, “Quantum mechanics could explain why DNA can spontaneously mutate” at Eurekalert (May 5, 2022)

The paper is open access.

Comments
Oh, and your responses to these questions from @45 would be enlightening to all:
. . . what’s your explanation of the Darwinian community’s lack of response to the following: • Subjecting the “stretchy” tissue and red blood cells found in many dinosaur bones to Carbon-14 dating. • Discovering how dinosaur tissue and bones have survived intact without being turned into dust by 60-70 million years of background radiation. • Examining supposedly related species to DNA sequencing to determine precise genotypic differences, which is profoundly more relevant than “they sorta look similar.” • Explaining how so-called “living fossils” such as the coelacanth resisted evolutionary change for approximately 65 million years. The brilliant photographer, Anselm Adams, once claimed that “everything interesting happens at the edges of things. I think the same dynamic is also active in science, where the edges of things are populated with exceptions, paradoxes, and mysteries. These scientific issues are routinely ignored until they become critical. – The deviations of the planet Mercury from standard orbital mechanics is one famous example. – Another example is how quantum effects were largely ignored until miniaturization of microprocessors and data storage hit a wall. – Even such well-established “facts” of physics such as the Bernoulli Principle being responsible for lift in wings have been overthrown (although still found in science and physics textbooks). Search on Bernoulli Principle to see what I mean. Here’s what NASA says about it now: https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/wrong1.html
-QQuerius
May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT
Fred Hickson @70, Ok, I just didn't know what you meant by "we" when you wrote
We can sequence whole genomes cheaply.
It gave me the impression that you worked for a genetics lab that performed such sequencing. Yes, I'm aware of the 2008 Nature article. But what does it tell you about Darwin's theory of tiny incremental mutations over many generations when both reptilian and mammalian genes appear ex nihilo in the same genome? Didn't you read the 2021 Nature article that I linked to on the subject? https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-03039-0 -QQuerius
May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT
No I've not worked on gene sequencing. Regarding platypus genome, 2008 was the year. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature06936#:~:text=The%20platypus%20genome%2C%20as%20well,of%20reptilian%20macro%2D%20and%20microchromosomes.Fred Hickson
May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
11:23 PM
11
11
23
PM
PDT
Fred Hickson, Care to address my question on your involvement with genome sequencing and what the platypus genome reveals? -QQuerius
May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT
Fred Hickson @66,
This one made me chuckle.
Glad to hear that. These's far too little humor nowadays.
The literature is bursting with discussion on homologues. We can sequence whole genomes cheaply.
Not feature homologues, but rather the issue of finding modern species in the same strata as those supposedly millions of years older. To solve this embarrassment, the out-of-place fossils are given different taxonomic classification based purely on conjecture. The ones that are obviously still alive are called "living fossils." I'm sure their survival is also "controversial." (smile).
We can sequence whole genomes cheaply.
Oh, are you involved in genome sequencing? How about completing the sequencing the modern platypus genome to show its evolutionary path. Also, there are numerous plants and animals whose genomes seem to be in conflict with their taxonomic classifications. For some additional humor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrlVEUdV2n8 And here's a Nature article published about a year ago on the magical homologues that suggest perhaps an alternative and more believable explanation: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-03039-0 -QQuerius
May 9, 2022
May
05
May
9
09
2022
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT
Fred Hickson @65, What I liked about the article in Nature was that the miraculous preservation for fresh tissue in dinosaur bones is no longer controversial, but rather how is was preserved is "controversial" (i.e. science fiction).
Hollow, pliable, and transparent vessel-like structures have been recovered from skeletal elements of multiple fossil vertebrates, including non-avian dinosaurs. Their vascular affinities have been supported through the application of varied independent methods to identify endogenous component proteins, including collagen, which is not produced by microbes, and elastin, which is vertebrate-specific.
And collagens degrade rapidly: https://www.evolutionisamyth.com/uncategorized/dinosaur-collagen-decay-rates-are-thousands-of-years-not-millions/ Not to mention the red blood cells present in the samples! And no, the iron in heme molecules won’t protect them for 60-70 million years.
These post mortem reactions may [i.e. MAY IN OUR WILDEST DREAMS] contribute significantly [OR NOT AT ALL] to tissue preservation by conferring resistance to degradation to the structural proteins that form the basis for the vessel structure.
Background radiation doesn’t care about "non-enzymatic crosslinks between or within structural proteins." Background radiation simply roasts organic material over time. It’s like what happens when you leave your food cooking in a microwave oven for a few thousand years too long. Putting cellophane wrap over it won't help. -QQuerius
May 9, 2022
May
05
May
9
09
2022
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT
Examining supposedly related species to DNA sequencing to determine precise genotypic differences, which is profoundly more relevant than “they sorta look similar.”
This one made me chuckle. The literature is bursting with discussion on homologues. We can sequence whole genomes cheaply. We can synthesize novel sequences. Why don't engineers and ID proponents get busy and find out how to design function from sequence. Biologists (Jack Szostak being a prime example) can only use nature's method of trial and error. An ID proponent (anyone, really) making an effort at predicting function from sequence would be wonderful.Fred Hickson
May 8, 2022
May
05
May
8
08
2022
10:33 PM
10
10
33
PM
PDT
What about addressing the questions to you in @49?
The first one about soft tissue in dinosaurs presumes, well, preservation of soft tissue in dinosaurs. What the fossil record shows precisely is still controversial. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-51680-1Fred Hickson
May 8, 2022
May
05
May
8
08
2022
10:20 PM
10
10
20
PM
PDT
JVL @58,
Banned again from a thread. Apologies to those I didn’t get a chance to respond to. Not my fault. Talk to the site admins.
This seems to happen randomly to people, myself included. -QQuerius
May 8, 2022
May
05
May
8
08
2022
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT
Fred Hickson,
I’m not hugely familiar with Marx. I know he (with Engels) wrote The Communist Manifesto. I didn’t know he expressed a view on evolutionary theory.
Notice that I specified that Marx-ISTS, not Karl Marx, quickly embraced punctuated equilibrium. Since you're not familiar with Marxism, then you wouldn't understand my example. Are you familiar with punctuated equilibrium? What about addressing the questions to you in @49? -QQuerius
May 8, 2022
May
05
May
8
08
2022
05:21 PM
5
05
21
PM
PDT
Fred Hickson The first biological information storage was not DNA, RNA precedes DNA (though that might not have been the first biomolecule storing information. What we see is what survived. As usual, history is written by the winners.
:) Darwinists just can't resist to make unprovable statements. Storytelling is not science but I guess is too late for some darwinists. You can't teach an old dog new tricks .
I’ll be Frank rather than Fred for the moment and say you seem to have a poor grasp of biology.
Your storytelling ideologic darwinism can't be called biology .Lieutenant Commander Data
May 8, 2022
May
05
May
8
08
2022
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT
Martin-r There may be formatting errors in your comment but I'll have a go at making sense of it belox.
Right now, there are 10,000,000 of living species on this planet. All perfectly working ….
Are there? That may be someone's estimate. I see a 2011 figure was 8.7 million but some talk of a trillion.
Fossils are rare.
Agreed.
So you can’t show me any faulty species, right?
No idea what you think a faulty species is. So, no, I can't.
So it really seems, that according to your absurd theory, COPYING ERRORS created MILLIONS OF PERFECTLY WORKING SPECIES :))))))))
Nope. Perfection is for Platonists. What I can attempt to show you is organisms extremely well adapted in form and behavior to their particular niche environments. Take Eremitalpa granti for example. It's an excellent swimmer... in sand!
PS: i always wanted to know, when the very first copying error occurred … in other words, was there a time when DNA molecule was without a single copying error ? Obviously, molecular clock started ticking at some point, when was it, the TIME ZERO ? And how looked all the species at that TIME ZERO, when you are saying, that copying errors/mutations created all the species ?
The first biological information storage was not DNA, RNA precedes DNA (though that might not have been the first biomolecule storing information. What we see is what survived. As usual, history is written by the winners. I'll be Frank rather than Fred for the moment and say you seem to have a poor grasp of biology. First understand, then criticize.Fred Hickson
May 8, 2022
May
05
May
8
08
2022
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT
Banned again from a thread. Apologies to those I didn’t get a chance to respond to. Not my fault. Talk to the site admins.
Take it as a compliment. I would. ;)Fred Hickson
May 8, 2022
May
05
May
8
08
2022
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT
Are you saying, if there would be a species that uses wheels for legs, would you start believe in creation ? Such wheels would convince you about a creator/designer ? Or why did you mention this ?
It's quite simple to a biologist. Multicellular organisms grow from an embryo. At all stages of their development they have to remain viable. Explain to me how nutrients etc can pass between the static and rotating parts of a biological wheel.Fred Hickson
May 8, 2022
May
05
May
8
08
2022
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT
Banned again from a thread. Apologies to those I didn't get a chance to respond to. Not my fault. Talk to the site admins.JVL
May 8, 2022
May
05
May
8
08
2022
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT
Martin_r
Perry Marshall is an electrotechnical engineer.
OK
He is more qualified to talk about design in nature than all biologists on this planet … because, biologists (natural science graduates) never made anything …
How did the Covid-19 vaccines get made?
Ironically, engineers are the only qualified persons to comment on design in biology.
I don't find that statement ironic, I find it is inaccurate.
I don’t know who you are,
Is anyone else here not posting under a pseudonym?
i have noticed your first comment like 2 weeks ago,
OK
I am a mechanical engineer with a decent IT background,
OK
...and...
The "and" emphasizes the non sequitur
when a biologist talks about bad design in nature, i can only laugh in his face. Biologists don’t even realize how terrible wrong they are …
Well, I can only assess your abilities by reading your comments here and I'll continue to decide for myself as to their value. I see there's more from you below. Let's see.Fred Hickson
May 8, 2022
May
05
May
8
08
2022
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT
Talking about fossils, is the principle of stratification false? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7SGB_uMRNU&t=320sLieutenant Commander Data
May 8, 2022
May
05
May
8
08
2022
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT
Querius
As a counterexample, consider the immediate acceptance of evolutionary punctuated equilibrium by Marxists on ideological compatibility alone. This sort of anti-scientific prejudice has also been termed ideological poisoning and we’re all susceptible to it.
I'm not hugely familiar with Marx. I know he (with Engels) wrote The Communist Manifesto. I didn't know he expressed a view on evolutionary theory. I'm also dubous as to whether Communism as espoused by Marx has ever really been put into practice. Cuba, maybe?Fred Hickson
May 8, 2022
May
05
May
8
08
2022
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT
A good commentary: https://www.the-scientist.com/opinion-old/why-do-we-invoke-darwin-48438marker
May 8, 2022
May
05
May
8
08
2022
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT
Hickson
Fossils are rare
Right now, there are 10,000,000 of living species on this planet. All perfectly working .... Fossils are rare. So you can't show me any faulty species, right ? So it really seems, that according to your absurd theory, COPYING ERRORS created MILLIONS OF PERFECTLY WORKING SPECIES :)))))))) PS: i always wanted to know, when the very first copying error occurred ... in other words, was there a time when DNA molecule was without a single copying error ? Obviously, molecular clock started ticking at some point, when was it, the TIME ZERO ? And how looked all the species at that TIME ZERO, when you are saying, that copying errors/mutations created all the species ?martin_r
May 8, 2022
May
05
May
8
08
2022
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT
Hickson the wheel issue ... Are you saying, if there would be a species that uses wheels for legs, would you start believe in creation ? Such wheels would convince you about a creator/designer ? Or why did you mention this ?martin_r
May 8, 2022
May
05
May
8
08
2022
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT
Hickson @30
Perry Marshall – “who he?”
Perry Marshall is an electrotechnical engineer. He is more qualified to talk about design in nature than all biologists on this planet ... because, biologists (natural science graduates) never made anything ... Ironically, engineers are the only qualified persons to comment on design in biology. I don't know who you are, i have noticed your first comment like 2 weeks ago, I am a mechanical engineer with a decent IT background, and when a biologist talks about bad design in nature, i can only laugh in his face. Biologists don't even realize how terrible wrong they are ...martin_r
May 8, 2022
May
05
May
8
08
2022
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT
Hickson @30
Ah, Denis Noble and the Third Way! Professor Noble is another example of a reputable academic (and he does have an excellent reputation in his field of physiology) pontificating outside his field of expertise. Perry Marshall - "who he?"
and who are you ? What is your education / field of expertise ? With people like you (Darwinists) it is very difficult. Even if R Dawkins would admit, that he was wrong about evolution and now he believes in creation, you would say, that R DAWKINS is now too old and probably got mad. Talking about experts, look what E.O. WILSON (called "Darwin of the 21st century") said about R. Dawkins (for BBC):
There is no dispute between me and Richard Dawkins and there never has been, because he’s a journalist, and journalists are people that report what the scientists have found and the arguments I’ve had have actually been with scientists doing research https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/nov/07/richard-dawkins-labelled-journalist-by-eo-wilson
This perfectly illustrates Darwinists ... no one is a good-enough expert on E-Theory :))))))martin_r
May 8, 2022
May
05
May
8
08
2022
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT
Fred Hickson, Silver Asiatic's satirical-though-realistic responses notwithstanding, what's your explanation of the Darwinian community's lack of response to the following: • Subjecting the “stretchy” tissue and red blood cells found in many dinosaur bones to Carbon-14 dating. • Discovering how dinosaur tissue and bones have survived intact without being turned into dust by 60-70 million years of background radiation. • Examining supposedly related species to DNA sequencing to determine precise genotypic differences, which is profoundly more relevant than “they sorta look similar.” • Explaining how so-called “living fossils” such as the coelacanth resisted evolutionary change for approximately 65 million years. The brilliant photographer, Anselm Adams, once claimed that "everything interesting happens at the edges of things. I think the same dynamic is also active in science, where the edges of things are populated with exceptions, paradoxes, and mysteries. These scientific issues are routinely ignored until they become critical. - The deviations of the planet Mercury from standard orbital mechanics is one famous example. - Another example is how quantum effects were largely ignored until miniaturization of microprocessors and data storage hit a wall. - Even such well-established "facts" of physics such as the Bernoulli Principle being responsible for lift in wings have been overthrown (although still found in science and physics textbooks). Search on Bernoulli Principle to see what I mean. Here's what NASA says about it now: https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/wrong1.html -QQuerius
May 8, 2022
May
05
May
8
08
2022
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT
Fred Hickson @46,
Half the battle in understanding is to see the world as it is rather than as you’d like it to be.
Nicely stated. I'd say it's far more than half the battle, especially considering the Bayesian nature of what we believe we understand. As a counterexample, consider the immediate acceptance of evolutionary punctuated equilibrium by Marxists on ideological compatibility alone. This sort of anti-scientific prejudice has also been termed ideological poisoning and we're all susceptible to it. -QQuerius
May 8, 2022
May
05
May
8
08
2022
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT
Fred Hickson:
According to evolutionary theory there are three main processes at play: adaptation, speciation and extinction.
Except there isn't any scientific theory of evolution. And ID is OK with adaptation, speciation and extinction.ET
May 8, 2022
May
05
May
8
08
2022
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PDT
@ Querius Good point about how science follows reality and does not lead. Half the battle in understanding is to see the world as it is rather than as you'd like it to be.Fred Hickson
May 7, 2022
May
05
May
7
07
2022
11:26 PM
11
11
26
PM
PDT
Querius and rotation. Yes, I'm quite aware of the two examples of rotary propulsion: one in archaea, the other in bacteria. These are at a molecular scale. The wheel doesn't work in whole multicellular organisms as organisms grow. A biological system has to grow with the organism. Can't do that with a wheel.Fred Hickson
May 7, 2022
May
05
May
7
07
2022
11:22 PM
11
11
22
PM
PDT
Googled "upright biped semiotic theory" and first hit was this blog post by someone with pseudonym "Elizabeth" in 2011. Interestingly, biochemistry hardly gets a mention. I see UB posted a comment. http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/upright-bipeds-semiotic-argument-for-design/Fred Hickson
May 7, 2022
May
05
May
7
07
2022
11:18 PM
11
11
18
PM
PDT
Good points all! As I'm sure you know, Evolution can explain everything in retrospect, but has never been able to correctly predict anything. The stories just keep changing or are forgotten. Remember that there were once over 100 "vestigial" organs presented as evidence for evolution? This included the thyroid gland. Once again, the ID hypothesis would have accelerated scientific progress over the assumption that whatever we don't understand must be leftover junk from the evolutionary process. Oh, but science was so backward then and now we're modern and know everything, right? And in 100 years, what will they think of our current science? -QQuerius
May 7, 2022
May
05
May
7
07
2022
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply