Talk:Quantum evolution (alternative)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Send to deletion?

I just came by and I just cannot see why this article is even here. The theory it explains about is obviously... well, confused. The article could easily be NPOV and OK, though - but is it necesarry? Is this theory notable? Obviously, no serious scientists believe it, but are there a sufficient amount of... other people who believe or consider it? Are there books out who people bought on this subject?

I just didn't want to nominate for deletion right away, any reasons not to? Lundse 17:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Comment

I was think the author here is confusing Teranesia (which is applicable, but not in the way the text suggests) with Quarantine which does talk about the observable universe being a superposition of states.

I think the author is very confused full stop. Dunc|☺ 18:30, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Major revision necessary

I think the author is an ignoramus. I mean this as a compliment. This article should be modified to make it very clear that this is just base speculation. Also the mistakes about "classical" evolution should be corrected. A good way to do this would be to erase this "article" and rewrite it. --Exa 17:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


Regardless of whether you accept this theory or not, and in the interests of historical accuracy I added an earlier reference to it. In fact, McFadden himself admits in his book (in the Chapter titled 'There is nothing new under the sun') that some people published before him very similar ideas. I also provided a web link to my paper published in Biosystems in 1997. Vasily Ogryzko, March 1st, 2006

[edit] Reverted edit by Duncharris

The following was removed (for the reason "It is utter garbarge"):

Quantum evolution is the hypothesis that genetic mutation is adaptive, or directed through quantum effects.

Firstly, "It is utter garbage" is a subjective comment because you have not explained why. You should have discussed it here.

I quote from the back cover of the book "Quantum Evolution - Life in the Multiverse" by Johnjoe McFadden (a leading theorist in this area, and Professor at Surrey University - i.e. someone who knows more about this than you):

"Living organisms are controlled by a single molecule - DNA. Yet Physics tells us that the behaviour of single molecules is controlled not by classical laws but by quantum mechanics. The implications of this for biology have never been fully explored. Until now. In this brilliant debut, Johnjoe McFadden puts forward a startling new theory of quantum evolution. He shows how quantum mechanics gives living organisms the ability to initiate specific actions including new mutations. Thus evolution may not be random at all but directed - cells may, in certain circumstances, be able to choose to mutate particular genes that provide an advantage in the environment in which the cell finds itself. This property of living organisms to direct their actions has startling implications. It must be at the root of both consciousness and free will: Quantum Evolution provides a new understanding of the origin of life and the meaning of death. Life, this brilliant book argues, is a quantum phenomenon. Quantum Evolution provides a new biology for the new millennium."

Now although this is from the back cover (i.e. hype) it nevertheless reflects the current idea/hypothesis of what quantum evolution is/means (as Pengo said previously). I can use more references from within the book if required (you may even read extracts of it if you follow the references link).

The removed sentence has therefore been re-added.

Regards (Theboywonder 14:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC))

== You asked for it ==
About your appeal to authority. I am not a professor, but I do have a degree in evolutionary biology, and it is quite apparent that quantum evolution is bullshit. If it was explained in a proper way and made sense then I would be able to understand it. As it is it is I can drive coach and horses through the argument which has more holes in than a block of emmental cheese and smells just as bad.
Mutations occur ultimately because of effects at the quantum level. Some types of mutations are more common than others (transitions are commoner than transversions) but they are effectively random. It is impossible to predict where a mutation will occur in all the letters of the genetic alphabet that forms the dictionary of life.
More importantly, "quantum evolution" is irrelevent because evolution occurs at a higher level. Mutations do not cause evolution, they merely provide the variation on which natural selection and random genetic drift act. The levels of mutation required to produce evolution can be produced through radiation and induce sterility. Simple population genetics models show that even a slight selection coefficient can completely swamp and directional mutation rates, and even random genetic drift is hugely more powerful. Let me state this again, mutations do not cause evolution and ergo quantum evolution is irrelevant to evolution.
And how do the quarks (or whatever they are) "know" about which direction they're supposed to induce mutatation in order to improve the fitness of the organism in question??????
"Quantum evolution" is a completely hashed pyramid of Neo-Lamarckian piffle. Prithee tell, which peer-reviewed scientific journal has quantum evolution been published?
And if his biology is that bad, I don't hold out much hope for his physics.
I could go on because actually mutation bias is interesting, but I'm afraid it's probably beyond your understanding and would just confuse you even more. You should try to learn the basics first and I suggest you start by reading The Selfish Gene.
And it is not only me who thinks this is bullshit because there are other editors around here with better credentials than me who will corroborate what I've just said. Dunc|☺ 14:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page to continue the discussion here, rather than cross posting to each others talk page. (Theboywonder 16:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC))

Whether or not you believe it to be bullshit (why you have to use rude words I have no idea), that was not my point. You didn't explain why you removed it, other than calling it garbage.
Let me restate (I may have been unclear previously): One of the original theorists in this area, claims exactly what you removed. Your POV on this theory is irrelevant to whether or not the main claim of the theory should be included. Note, it does say hypothesis - it is not an absolutist claim. I guess you have realised this because you haven't reverted my change?
If you wish to disagree with the theory itself, why don't you start a criticism section? It would be cool if you could, perhaps with the other editors you mention :)
I've already read The Selfish Gene - excellent book.
(Theboywonder 16:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC))

This article does have a reason for existence, but any NPOV explanation of this topic is going to necessarily leave the reader with the feeling that quantum evolution is, well, nonsense. As it stands, this artlce fails to make this as obvious as it should be. Alienus 16:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What ???

From what i have read about this "subject". is in total contradiction to anything writen here. basicaly if my memory serve the only idea about this was that the superpostion of the moloceules (already im haveing issues) means that the dna can replicate faster (see quantum computing) and that is all. nothing to do with evolution or mutations.

Then find references for this and correct the article. Alienus 10:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Still disputed?

I just read the article, and found that it does a fine job of explaining what Q.E. means to those who use the term, while also making it clear that it is not accepted scientific theory.

So can we remove the flag?

Yes, I think we can. Alienus 02:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Well this the inherent problem with NPOV. It is so wrong it's not even a bit right. In fact it probably should be vfded. I can give you the population genetics equations if you like (I do have a biology degree if you're not too much into the Wiki anti-elitist approach). — Dunc|☺ 11:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm fine with your degree, really, but I don't see how population genetics is going to make quantum evolution look any less dumb, or why a fair description of a dumb thing somehow violates the NPOV policy. Alienus 13:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Although not necessarily a Dawkins fan .. but having a post grad in evolecol... shocking .. anyway the "culling out those mutations which are less beneficial to the organism" is rubbish and mutation bias is only controversial if you still waste your time with a 19th century debate around design etc. 4:30 12.1.2006 [GMT]
Ok, so what do you suggest? Alienus 05:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


Well I would remove the Neutral Point of View Flag as the View is not neutral but wrong. I find the Neutral Point of View gives it more value than it deserves. If the article in fact is a true representation of a dumb idea, it should stay but state it as it does. So remove the NPOV, I would say and replace it with a Template that only disputes the accuracy. 17:12 12.1.2006 [GMT]

[edit] George G. Simpson's quantum evolution

There is another, totally unrelated, idea about evolution which is also called quantum evolution. It's similar to Gould's Punctuated equilibrium, but came first. --Extremophile 21:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for Deletion debate

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splash - tk 23:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I have made a few copy edits, removed the cleanup template, and fixed the refs. The Ogryzko reference needs to be placed or removed. -- Fyslee 19:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


I added a sentence in the beginning, in order to place the reference to my 1997 paper in Biosystems. Unfortunately, I had trouble getting the reference number right at the end of the text. Anyone can help? Also, I changed the wording of the first sentence from '...genetic mutation IS adaptive...' to '...genetic mutation CAN BE adaptive...', as reflecting more accurately this idea. Vasily Ogryzko, 25 January, 2007. The link to ArXive posting of the same article had been added, Vasily, 31 January, 2007

[edit] Comment on neutrality

Hi all,

So, I just finished reading Quantum Evolution, Donald's critique, and McFadden's rebuttal (which should probably be commented on and added as a source; it's on the arxiv). I disagee that the theory is "off the deep end" as some would suggest. Not even Donald goes that far, stating that he believes that McFadden is misguided and that the theory needs work. I agree, that his arguements are not rigorous enough yet for any serious scientist to accept it as-is. However, I think that it does have some promise if it can be developed rigorously. I suggest that the article should be revised, as the critiques of the theory now appear both in the main body and the critiques section, which probably distracts and biases new readers. Further, as I suggested above, McFadden's rebuttal should be included to balance the article.

- John Gamble, jgamble08@wooster.edu

71.116.40.133 18:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

McFadden uses solid quantum theory to provide an explanation of evoluntionary behaviour. Impressive but we don't know if it is correct yet. However this article shows a lack of understanding of QM and treats the theory of QE as crackpot science. The originator does not profess to known the answer and is exploring an interesting avenue. Very non-neutral.

DJM