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
"There is no single evolutionary mechanism - there are countless. Evolutionary theory is a smorgasbord: a vast buffet of disjointed and conflicting mechanisms waiting to be chosen by the theorist. For any given question, the theorist invokes only those mechanisms that look most satisfying. Yet, the next question elicits a different response, with other mechanisms invoked and other neglected. Evolutionary theory has no coherent structure. It is amorphous. It is malleable and can readily adjust to disparate patterns of data. Evolution accommodates data like fog accommodates landscape. In fact, evolutionary theory fails to clearly predict anything about life that is actually true. As a result evolution is not science." (Walter Remine,Biotic message). " Whatever your personality or history may be, a good astrologer will find some conjunction of the planets that explains why you are this way, even though as a Sagittarius you're 'expected' to be the opposite. ....there is more to a good scientific hypothesis than corroboration; it must be falsifiable." (Futuyma, Science On Trial: The Case for Evolution 1983,Pantheon Books p 168 )Lieutenant Commander Data
May 7, 2022
May
05
May
7
07
2022
05:38 PM
5
05
38
PM
PDT
Marker
If information was taken away, evolution did it. If it was added, evolution did it. If an organism survives over an alleged millions of years then evolution didn’t have to change anything. Such flexible, no matter what, explanations ignore that a lot was happening to and on the earth over those alleged millions of years. I’m not convinced evolution is valid because it consists of so many stories that involve too many assumptions.
I was tongue-in-cheek with the two previous. But I fully agree. For example, in the exact environment where there are dozens of plant species surviving and thriving quite well, supposedly, a species had to evolve the capability to catch, digest and nourish itself on insects. Because supposedly it couldn't find any other way to survive just with plain old photosynthesis and nutrition from the soil and water like all the other plants in that niche? It doesn't make sense. As you say, in the end all they have to do is claim "evolution did it" - no matter what we observe.Silver Asiatic
May 7, 2022
May
05
May
7
07
2022
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PDT
Querius
Oh, I know. They get eaten and don’t leave any fossils–sorta like the grass and the cow story in @27.
The Darwin enterprise owes you an award for that one. You just solved a big problem. Of course, flawed species don't leave any fossils. Everybody knows that.
• Subjecting the “stretchy” tissue and red blood cells found in many dinosaur bones to Carbon-14 dating.
There's no need for Carbon-14 dating because we know how old dinosaurs are. And if we came up with different dates because of the spongy tissue, that would just confuse everyone.
• Discovering how dinosaur tissue and bones have survived intact without being turned into dust by 60-70 million years of background radiation.
Obviously, soft tissue has been known to be preserved for 60-79 million years because we have found it in dinosaur bones that old. Some tissue is just like that. It's stretchy and doesn't lose moisture over tens of millions of years. So it's no surprise here. We knew this a long time ago - maybe even Darwin knew it.
• Examining supposedly related species to DNA sequencing to determine precise genotype differences, which is profoundly more relevant than “they sorta look similar.”
if they look similar, then they're obviously ancestral. If they look similar but the DNA doesn't align, then obviously they evolved independently. That's been very predictive so far.
• Explaining how so-called “living fossils” such as the coelacanth resisted evolution for approximately 65 million years without any visible changes.
Unlike bacteria which had to evolve into pine trees, elephants, killer whales and Mozart just to find some food, the coelacanth found the perfect form and was able to fight off evolution and persist through 300 billion different niches. Good for them. It's always helpful to fight off mutations and just preserve your identity. Evolution is always threatening to give you more speed, power, intelligence, longevity - an aptitude for calculus - but the coelacanth would have none of it.Silver Asiatic
May 7, 2022
May
05
May
7
07
2022
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT
SA, Nonsense. Experts need evidence. Evolution works for or against an organism as a storytelling mechanism. If information was taken away, evolution did it. If it was added, evolution did it. If an organism survives over an alleged millions of years then evolution didn't have to change anything. Such flexible, no matter what, explanations ignore that a lot was happening to and on the earth over those alleged millions of years. I'm not convinced evolution is valid because it consists of so many stories that involve too many assumptions.marker
May 7, 2022
May
05
May
7
07
2022
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT
Querius
Yeah, I guess an expert in physiology would be totally ignorant of the physiological aspects of genetics and evolution, right?
True, because he's just an expert in physiology of organisms and not an expert in the physiological aspects of organisms. Anybody who questions something about evolutionary theory has just proven that he cannot possibly understand it. No evolutionary expert ever has questioned the theory, or any part of the theory - from Darwin to today. The sky is blue. H2O is water. Bacteria became human beings. Experts know these things. Of course this must be true because in order to even understand evolutionary theory, you have to be convinced of its validity. And that's what it takes to become an expert.Silver Asiatic
May 7, 2022
May
05
May
7
07
2022
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PDT
Fred Hickson,
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.
Yeah, I guess an expert in physiology would be totally ignorant of the physiological aspects of genetics and evolution, right?
But Perry Marshall? Who he?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_Marshall
Querius, your propeller powered duck . . . Couldn’t happen.
If you read the link you provided, you'd have noticed that propellers can and actually do exist in some bacteria. But, you seem to have forgotten the point of my post. It was about the requirements for fixation of a trait in a population and Haldane's dilemma. Are you familiar with these concepts?
I leave it as an exercise to the reader to decide which fate befalls the FAULtY SPECIES
Oh, I know. They get eaten and don't leave any fossils--sorta like the grass and the cow story in @27. This explains why Darwin's theory has still failed to produce any missing links. What is not being done with today's technologies includes: • 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 genotype differences, which is profoundly more relevant than “they sorta look similar.” • Explaining how so-called “living fossils” such as the coelacanth resisted evolution for approximately 65 million years without any visible changes. -QQuerius
May 7, 2022
May
05
May
7
07
2022
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT
Martin_r asked why weren’t caught in mud(to be fossilised) those incomplete/trasitional/midway organisms but only complete functional organisms?
Fossilization is rare, most especially for terrestrial (as opposed to aquatic) organisms. Hard parts, teeth, shells, bones, fossilize whereas soft parts almost never do. Complete organisms? Fossils are never complete. Organisms go extinct for a number of reasons, the most obvious is niche change or destruction which is too rapid for the species to adapt to. The Chicxulub bolide caused the extinction of some otherwise very successful dinosaurs. The Permian extinction... I could go on. People here seem to have a problem with strawmen.Fred Hickson
May 7, 2022
May
05
May
7
07
2022
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT
Obviously, chemical reactions occurring at the cellular level would involve atomic events or quantum events. The switches that control cellular function are still not well understood, not to mention how the switches got there to act in precise ways to make sure that nutrients got into the cell and at the right amount, and to make sure waste products were removed.marker
May 7, 2022
May
05
May
7
07
2022
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT
Molecular Mechanisms of Splicing :lol: Hey Fred Hickson could you explain what is all about? https://vimeo.com/401600532
Fred Hickson According to evolutionary theory there are three main processes at play: adaptation, speciation and extinction.
:) Martin_r asked why weren't caught in mud(to be fossilised) those incomplete/trasitional/midway organisms but only complete functional organisms?Lieutenant Commander Data
May 7, 2022
May
05
May
7
07
2022
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT
WHERE ARE ALL THE FAULTY SPECIES ?
All caps! Must be an urgent question. According to evolutionary theory there are three main processes at play: adaptation, speciation and extinction. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to decide which fate befalls the FAULtY SPECIESFred Hickson
May 7, 2022
May
05
May
7
07
2022
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT
Querius, your propeller powered duck: Rotating locomotion in living systems Couldn't happen.Fred Hickson
May 7, 2022
May
05
May
7
07
2022
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT
But Perry Marshall? Who he?Fred Hickson
May 7, 2022
May
05
May
7
07
2022
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT
@ Querius 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.Fred Hickson
May 7, 2022
May
05
May
7
07
2022
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT
Fred Hickson @28, https://www.herox.com/evolution2.0 -QQuerius
May 7, 2022
May
05
May
7
07
2022
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT
Querius asks
What about the Evolution 2.0 mechanisms?
Well what about them? What is "evolution 2.0"? Who is Perry Marshall?Fred Hickson
May 7, 2022
May
05
May
7
07
2022
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT
Martin_r @26,
WHERE ARE ALL THE FAULTY SPECIES ?
Reminds me of a fictional conversation between an artist and a critic: C: And what do we have here? A: This is a fabulous painting of a cow eating grass. C: Where's the grass? A: The cow has eaten it. C: Where's the cow? A: Why would the cow stick around after eating all the grass? So, in this case, all the faulty species and links between the successful ones were eaten and did not survive in large numbers to have enough preserved in the "fossil record" to be discovered by paleontologists. But, starting with Charles Darwin, we have their sincere assurances that they will someday be found. -QQuerius
May 7, 2022
May
05
May
7
07
2022
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT
Dear friends... i see lots of arguments about natural selection ... what was selected, what was not and so on ... does it even matter ? @8 ... i put a simple question: WHERE ARE ALL THE FAULTY SPECIES ?martin_r
May 7, 2022
May
05
May
7
07
2022
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT
:) There is nothing random in cell/organisms because wherever exist a programming language the very reason of its presence is to fight randomness not to produce more randomness. On the other hand to produce variability you need a very stable and reliable machine to do that. A postal van do nothing random but obey very strict instructions. That car stoped at a certain address not by chance or randomnly even an uninformed by-stander (that have no clue what is the purpose of a mail van neither the specific letter/parcel to be delivered )could think that.Sandy
May 7, 2022
May
05
May
7
07
2022
04:43 AM
4
04
43
AM
PDT
Fred Hickson, What about the Evolution 2.0 mechanisms? From another post . . .
According to his book, Evolution 2.0, Perry Marshall claims there are five, maybe six ways that a genome can change. The weakest one is random mutation. 1. Transposition 2. Horizontal gene transfer 3. Epigenetics 4. Symbiogenesis 5. Genome duplication 6. Random mutation (maybe rarely) He’s offered a $10,000,000 US prize to anyone who can replicate cellular evolution. Details here: https://www.herox.com/evolution2.0
According to Evolution 2.0, the first five mechanisms listed above are far more efficient and probable (as a fine-tuning mechanism at the best in my opinion) than RANDOM mutations producing anything both mildly complex AND useful in a series of tiny increments. Also, natural selection happens AFTER a series of random mutations and the change must appear multiple times in a population before the change becomes fixed. Let's say a duck somehow randomly mutates a feathery propeller that allows it to fly faster and farther on the same amount of energy. A lucky duck. However, the first such duck gets run over by a pickup, and many centuries later, the second one with the same mutation loses control and flies into the side of a barn, and after many more centuries pass, several others can't attract mates. The eventual offspring will face the same obstacles. However, the number of "propeller ducks" must reach a critical number in the population. Also note that the rate of change in DNA to produce the number of changes required for a feathery propeller is limited (surprisingly small) as described by Haldane's dilemma. The $10,000,000 prize is still available after almost seven years. -QQuerius
May 6, 2022
May
05
May
6
06
2022
08:13 PM
8
08
13
PM
PDT
Fred Hickson:
JVL gave a reasonable summary of the two core porcesses of evolution: random variation and non-random selection.
Elimination. Non-random ELIMINATION. And no one can say, specifically, what gets varied. So, it remains untestable nonsense. But we understand how the simple-minded are easily fooled by it.ET
May 6, 2022
May
05
May
6
06
2022
07:26 PM
7
07
26
PM
PDT
Fred Hickson:
ET refers me to a 25 year old idea by Lee Spetner that doesn’t seem to have got into the mainstream. How does that work?
How does it work that mainstream doesn't even know what determines biological form? How does it work that mainstream can't even formulate a scientific theory of evolution? And how does it work that after all your socks, you are still a willfully ignorant troll and equivocating coward?
Everyone else, deflect to “evolution sucks”.
Wow. Intelligent Design isn't anti-evolution.ET
May 6, 2022
May
05
May
6
06
2022
07:23 PM
7
07
23
PM
PDT
Wow. Natural selection is a process of elimination. It is non-random in a trivial sense in that not all variants have the same chance of being eliminated. Natural selection is nothing more than contingent serendipity. Loss of function can even increase the odds of survival. Clearly you don't understand the concept of natural selection. And the non-random evolutionary hypothesis is not natural selection. But you, being ignorant of both concepts, could easily confuse them.ET
May 6, 2022
May
05
May
6
06
2022
07:19 PM
7
07
19
PM
PDT
Spetner's latest book "The Evolution Revolution: Why Thinking People are Rethinking Evolution" develops his nonrandom hypothesis (NREH) and was published in 2014 by Judaica Press.
(Wikipedia) Non-random? That's selection! ;)Fred Hickson
May 6, 2022
May
05
May
6
06
2022
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT
Hmm. Odd responses to "what is the ID explanation". ET refers me to a 25 year old idea by Lee Spetner that doesn't seem to have got into the mainstream. How does that work? Everyone else, deflect to "evolution sucks". Color me unimpressed though ET might have something with Spetner. Let's see.Fred Hickson
May 6, 2022
May
05
May
6
06
2022
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT
ET @15, On the contrary, ignorance is an impenetrable shield! (wink) Marker @17, Nicely stated! To "ratchet up" information content requires the equivalent of a Maxwell's demon. I believe that this device has also been falsified WRT information. -QQuerius
May 6, 2022
May
05
May
6
06
2022
05:16 PM
5
05
16
PM
PDT
Again, starting with an analogy, a bicycle cannot mutate into a motorcycle which then mutates into a car. Increasing complexity is not about isolated parts. All of the parts have to work together, quickly and accurately. There needs to be support parts in place. Having an ear does not assume anything else. But a close examination reveals small bones and very small 'hairs' and a means to interpret the information coming in. Random mutations are not goal oriented. Back to eyes. Birds have them on each side of the head but their brains interpret the information coming in correctly. No accidents and no randomness.marker
May 6, 2022
May
05
May
6
06
2022
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT
Evolutionists would have us believe that all literature arose from one book via a differential accumulations of copying errors.ET
May 6, 2022
May
05
May
6
06
2022
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT
Fred Hickson:
I don’t believe anyone in the ID fold has yet proposed an alternative hypothesis.
Again, your ignorance is not an argument. Dr Spetner's "non-random evolutionary hypothesis" was published in 1997. Only 25 years ago.ET
May 6, 2022
May
05
May
6
06
2022
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT
Also note that the interocular distance can vary between people and animals. When I was a teenager, I once cobbled together an optical rangefinder in a long tube with four mirrors, two on each side. My intended result was to make my eyes effectively wider apart for enhanced stereoscopic vision. It "sort of" worked, but I had to make a lot of very small adjustments, which never were quite good enough to lock both eyes together. This same problem occurs after strabismus surgery if not performed during the time that the brain is still able to lock in small adjustments. Also, some adults use prismatic lenses to compensate for slightly misaligned eyes or eye-muscle tension. Here's what I had in mind: https://www.navalgazing.net/Rangefinding Incidentally, our stereoscopic vision is much more limited than what you might think. We use other visual cues to determine differences in distant objects. -QQuerius
May 6, 2022
May
05
May
6
06
2022
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT
Marker @12, I think everyone is busy responding to each other regarding the Supreme Court and abortion. But to your point, apparently the chemical cycles converting light into electrical pulses to the brain is also incredibly complex. If eyesight were so simple, then millions of blind people would certainly want their eyesight restored by means of retinal transplants. But apparently that's not so easy either despite how this is waved off as trivial by the Darwin crowd: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12885930/ -QQuerius
May 6, 2022
May
05
May
6
06
2022
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply