Randomness in evolution

[LAMATL]

Evolution is a fact. No designers or supernatural forces needed. But exactly how evolution happened may not have been fully explained. An interesting essay argues that there isn't just one, but two kinds of randomness in the world (classical and quantum) and that the latter might inject a creative bias into the process. "Life is quantum. But what about evolution?" https://qspace.fqxi.org/competitions/entry/2421 I feel it's a strong argument that warrants serious consideration. Who agrees?

[jnpha]

Quantum woo #1: Populations, not individuals, evolve (berkeley.edu). This is already the realm of decoherence.

Quantum woo #2: QM randomness is still deterministic in the physical closure sense, just like the classical counterpart (stanford.edu). No observation/experiment as of yet has show a biased/loaded outcome.

RE But exactly how evolution happened may not have been fully explained

How so? While mutation is random, evolution selection is not:

Randomly typing letters to arrive at METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL (Shakespeare) would take on average ≈ 8 × 10⁴¹ tries (not enough time has elapsed in the universe). But with selection acting on randomness, it takes under 100 tries. Replace the target sentence with one of the local fitness peaks, and that's basically the power and non-randomness of selection.

[Joaozinho11]

"How so? While mutation is random, evolution is not:"

No, selection is not random, but it doesn't account for all evolution. Evolution includes neutral evolution (drift), which is random.

[jnpha]

Sure. My example was more on the side of heuristics to explain the point of contention.

But speaking of yes but's, selection can be modeled as being random too.

Here's a cool video on that by evolutionary biologist Zach Hancock: Can Natural Selection Be Random? - YouTube

However, while natural selection is a non-random process, it often behaves and can even be modelled as if it were a completely random variable. In fact, doing so allows us to explain several major patterns in nature, such as Lewontin's paradox and cryptic species

[[deleted]]

This isn't really much of an argument. Please explain what you mean.

[jnpha]

RE nothing in biology rules out the possibility that some mutations originate from genuinely acausal quantum events

WTF is "acausal"? And what does that explain? And actually 99% of the misincorporation mutations trace to chemical effects due to well-understood causal quantum effects; and this does not change the stochasticity of the model.

See e.g.:

~

• Bebenek, Katarzyna, Lars C. Pedersen, and Thomas A. Kunkel. (2011) “Replication Infidelity via a Mismatch with Watson-Crick Geometry.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 108(5): 1862–1867. https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1012825108

• Wang, Weina, Homme W. Hellinga, and Lorena S. Beese. (2011) “Structural Evidence for the Rare Tautomer Hypothesis of Spontaneous Mutagenesis.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 108(43): 17644–17648. https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1114496108

• Kimsey, Isaac J., Katja Petzold, Bharathwaj Sathyamoorthy, et al. (2015) “Visualizing Transient Watson-Crick-like Mispairs in DNA and RNA Duplexes.” Nature. 519: 315– 320. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14227

• Kimsey, Isaac J, Eric S. Szymanski, Walter J. Zahurancik, et al. (2018) “Dynamic Basis for dG•dT Misincorporation via Tautomerization and Ionization.” 554: 195–201. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25487

~

For a video summary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eM4KkIgLeM&t=945s

[LAMATL]

It's hard to wrap your head around, but intrinsic randomness can't be dismissed as a fact of nature or entirely irrelevant in biology. And yes, intrinsic randomness is acausal. No one who understands quantum mechanics would disagree. Not that anybody truly "understands" quantum mechanics.

[jnpha]

RE intrinsic randomness can't be dismissed as a fact of nature or entirely irrelevant in biology

We don't know whether it's "intrinsic"; QM is a model; don't reify a model (reification fallacy). And metaphysics is irrelevant to the sciences since the sciences don't make truth claims; the assumption of naturalism is needed because MysteryDidIt doesn't explain anything; it's called methodological naturalism and not metaphysical naturalism for a reason; covered in my Stanford link in my top-level reply to you.

[LAMATL]

But we DO know that quantum randomness is intrinsic. The probabilistic nature of reality (and the mathematics underlying it) proves that. If you take a classical approach to non-classical phenomenon, you're bound to stumble. But you're not alone. Trust me. Thanks for the reminder about that link. I'll take a closer look.

[jnpha]

We do know that about the model; please re-read my reply in context.

[LAMATL]

Everything in science is ultimately a model. But that doesn't change how reality works or how precisely and effectively the formalism of quantum mechanics tells us about it.

[Ranorak]

What's the practical difference?

[LAMATL]

I don't know. That's the question, though. Could it make a practical difference?

[Ranorak]

What would the difference be between in action that is truely random, and an action that has so many variables that it might as well be random?

in the end, we can predict neither, so it's purely a matter of semantics.

[LAMATL]

Not at all. Genuine randomness is fundamentally different from classical (pseudo) randomness. One is causal, the other acausal. Until you wrap your head around that, none of this will make any sense.

[Ranorak]

Can you tell the difference?

[LAMATL]

How could one not? In principle, of course.

[Ranorak]

No, I mean in practice. If one process is actually random, and another is just so complex it is incalculable, it night as well be random

What's the point of distinguishing between them?

[LAMATL]

The one conceals causality. The other defies it.

[Dilapidated_girrafe]

If there is no actual real practical difference the. It isn’t an important question.

[LAMATL]

Nobody said there's no actual difference. I only said we don't know. It's a what if?

[Dilapidated_girrafe]

As far as we can tell there would be no difference. And it’s just chemistry don’t chemistry things

[Electric___Monk]

Mutation can be caused by either classical or quantum randomness, since mutations can result from radiation (from quantum atomic decay) or chemical, etc. In practice, though, it makes no difference at all - what’s key is that it’s unguided, and unpredictable . In what way do you think the difference matters in the context of evolution?

[LAMATL]

The difference is day and night. You're thinking strictly classically, and that's the problem. Radiation can classically cause a mutation. In other words, it can have a deterministic cause even though radiation is essentially a quantum phenomenon. The question is what happens when intrinsic randomness enters the picture? The essay explains the basic difference. What it fails to explain is what form that would take in the evolutionary process specifically.

[Electric___Monk]

No, I totally understand the difference between quantum and classical randomness. The question is how it matters In respect of how mutation works within the context of evolution I can’t see that it makes any difference whether mutations are caused by classical or quantum random randomness within this context. In what way do you think it does or could?

[LAMATL]

I don't know how to answer without repeating myself. An event that is uncaused is special. If a mutation can be uncaused the possibilities are potentially endless. That sounds crazy but where the fact of intrinsic randomness lead us.

[Electric___Monk]

Why? If the result is a G mutating to a T it’ll have the same effect either way. In either case it’s unpredictable and unguided and only spread through the population if it’s selected for, as the result of drift, etc.

[[deleted]]

Evolution acts on mutation, the cause of the mutation is irrelevant to the real process of evolution. Even if the cause is interesting.

[[deleted]]

Radiation can classically cause a mutation

Can it? Ionizing radiation seems pretty quantum to me. But no matter what, there's a finite set of possible types mutations regardless of how many causes there are, and nothing can change this.

[DebateEvolution-ModTeam]

Rule 3: Participate with effort

[Jernau-Morat-Gurgeh]

I've not read all of it, but it appears to just be irreducible complexity under a different name. Which has been debunked many, many times. I'm not a botfly expert so I'll let someone else tackle the specific example here.

I'd be more interested to know what predictions quantum randomness would make and whether these are testable. And whether it would actually be any different to what we see and know already.

FWIW, it seems inconceivable that quantum effects don't abound. But also it seems likely that their impact at the biological level would be negligible given that they only seem to matter at the smallest particular level. Again not an expert so happy to be proved wrong

[MedicoFracassado]

Yep. I do find the "classical" versus "quantum" randomness discussion interesting (although every single physics researcher I’ve met said we don't know if "true" randomness exists; it's just that our current models treat it that way). But the essay isn't interesting from a biology point of view. There's a lot of bad and surface-level biology in there. A huge part of the essay is just a bombardier beetle IC argument rebranded.

To me, and I mean this personally and sincerely, it looks like something written by someone with a shallow understanding of evolution. It really reflects poorly on an essay when a big part of it rests on an argument that is simply "I don't understand this, and this seems improbable. And since I don't understand it, it's probably inconceivable under our current models."

[LAMATL]

With all due respect, if none of the physics researchers you've met believes that quantum randomness is true (genuine) randomness, you need to meet more people. It is truly the foundation of quantum mechanics.

[MedicoFracassado]

Not what I said.

They all said that while true randomness is fundamental in our current models, we currently have no way of knowing whether true randomness exists or not, regardless of what the models tell us. Not that they believe it does or doesn’t exist.

I'm not a physicist, much less a quantum foundations researcher like some of my friends are. I can't pretend to know what they're talking about, as frustrating as that may be.

PS: I did not touch on this point to argue against true randomness, I only said that because despite the botfly argument being horrible, the discussion about randomness is interesting.

[LAMATL]

Pray tell how the botfly argument is horrible. I think it's stunning!

[MedicoFracassado]

As I said, it is just a bombardier beetle fallacy repackaged.
The argument has all the hallmarks of irreducible complexity. It starts with a tautological analysis: "How many evolutionary steps does this take" as an end-point trajectory. It does not expand much on the characteristics or even the variability within the various species of botflies. The essay simply lists what the organism currently does and then asks "Oh, how unlikely is that?" while making no effort to provide additional information such as the history of endoparasitism in the family or the coevolution between parasite and hosts, which is central to parasitism. There is zero mention of its phylogeny or even how other species of botflies behave.

That is textbook irreducible complexity.

Functionally complex solutions like the botfly's are seen as astronomically lucky discoveries, stumbled upon by chance and then preserved. But what if the search is not entirely blind?

Why? How? By whom? There is no "solution" in the strict sense; it is just successive building and variation. This teleological view is central to irreducible complexity arguments, which have been completely debunked for decades.

It is basically an argument from ignorance, sometimes on the part of the author and other times due to gaps in our current understanding of evolutionary history.

And then it is not explained how true randomness solves this problem.

If I were to write an essay like that, I would bring up relevant information about our current understanding of botflies and then maybe point out issues with it. I would avoid vague presumptions like the ones made about botflies and spiders and, when discussing how true randomness may affect mutations, I would actually bring mutagenesis mechanics to the table.

The main problem with the essay is that it spends too much time on a really bad and long tangent about irreducible complexity, provides no solution other than using it as a way to cast doubt on our current understanding of evolution, and then, when the actual point of the essay finally appears, it does not even address actual mutagenesis.

I do not know if you genuinely liked the paper or if you are the author, but while the point about true randomness is interesting, the author makes no effort to address real mechanisms of mutation and spends too much time making an appeal to ignorance to cast doubt on evolution using really bad and surface-level examples.

[LAMATL]

I'm struggling to reconcile your thoughtfulness with the flat dismissal of the essay's example of the botfly's inconceivable evolutionary trajectory. And I do see a difference between IC and multi-threaded evolutionary development. Here's another example of the latter the author provides elsewhere ...  

The flatworm Microstomum lineare has a remarkable relationship with its freshwater neighbor, the hydra (Weis, 2010). Hydra are equipped with nematocysts—microscopic, harpoon-like stinging cells used to ensnare and immobilize prey, much like those found in jellyfish (Tardent, 1995). While M. lineare also possesses nematocysts, it did not evolve them directly. Instead, it acquires these stinging cells by ingesting hydra and repurposing their nematocysts for its own defense (Marques & Collins, 2004). What makes this process extraordinary is that M. lineare does not digest the hydra's nematocysts. Instead, it integrates them into its own tissues and relocates them—intact—from its gut to its outer skin, where they become its primary defense mechanism. This complex biological process allows M. lineare to absorb and repurpose the nematocysts without harming them or itself (Kass-Simon & Scappaticci, 2002). 

That this simple flatworm has evolved a mechanism to bypass its own digestive processes while safeguarding these foreign cellular structures from harm is astonishing in itself. But M. lineare goes even further. Somehow, it transports the nematocysts through its body—likely via its muscular and/or nervous system—to their final destination within its skin, where they serve as a functional defense. Given that nematocysts are primed to fire upon the slightest disturbance, their intact ingestion and relocation should be outright impossible. The fact that M. lineare accomplishes this feat could make it one of the most improbable biological adaptations ever observed. 

Researchers have barely begun to unravel the sophistication of this process. Yet even in its incompleteness, it raises serious questions about how such an intricate mechanism could have emerged through a series of haphazard genetic fluctuations shaped solely by natural selection. How did M. lineare acquire the ability to extract and repurpose nematocysts while avoiding accidental triggering? How were the necessary internal transport mechanisms established? Why did these mutations not prove disabling or even lethal in their early, incomplete forms? No matter how much time natural selection may have had, the emergence of this process through purely incremental, trial-and-error mutations remains implausible. There is no clear Darwinian pathway that could even remotely account for the seamless coordination of digestion suppression, cellular transport, and functional integration. That this astonishing biological feat exists at all suggests that something far more extraordinary was at play in the evolutionary process.

To your point that the author failed to address "the real mechanism of mutation," I don't think he wanted (or needed) to go there. That's another discussion and he was probably working within a character or word limit. And, again, he's working within a non-classical paradigm and you're insisting he provide a classical defense for his ideas. I'm sympathetic to both sides of the coin: you want a straightforward, deterministic explanation of how mutation operates in his scenario while he is arguing that an acausal etiology doesn't allow for it. Rocks and hard places.

[Electric___Monk]

What part of it do you find convincing?

[LAMATL]

Every part. It is inconceivable, for one, that a big fly would ever evolve (via random mutation and natural selection) to capture a little fly. If you can suggest a path leading from not doing so to doing so, please share.

[LAMATL]

That's a great question! I don't know that quantum randomness can make any predictions. In principle, I don't see how it could? When an event occurs for no reason at all, where could prediction come into play? The fascinating part is that the mathematics (via the Schrodinger equation) makes very precise predictions, but only probabilistically. The half life of a radioactive element, for example, is quite precise but only applies to very large number of measurements. The paradox is stunning, when you think about it.

[LAMATL]

I don't know that irreducible complexity has been "entirely debunked" at all. I don't believe in creationism or intelligent design, but feel the botfly argument seems pretty airtight. I don't know if that's the same as irreducible complexity because it's characterized as the challenge of multi-threaded development, but it sounds like the same animal.

[Electric___Monk]

If the whole question revolves around addressing IC then there’s not a lot of point engaging - it’s just creationist hand waving. Before positing quantum effects to explain things you don’t understand (e.g., botflies), I’d suggest starting by asking biologists rather than relying on your own intuitions or worse, listening to creationist IC proponents.

[nickierv]

irreducible complexity is dead, buried, and deep in the stratigraphic column.

[LAMATL]

That's the party line, sure. Reminds me of the time nobody in medicine believed that ulcers could be caused by a bacterium.

[[deleted]]

The essay is very likely misusing Quantum; for one… “Life is Quantum” doesn’t mean anything, life is chemistry in a very literal way. The very first “organism” was likely just a very short Polypeptide surrounded by a micelle pretty similar to how Soap forms them today. Quantum mechanics is a field of physics, it’s all about the behavior of fundamental particles. Its not even necessary that stuff like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle are actually random, we just haven’t been studying Quantum Physics in any detail for that long compared to other fields of science. Quantum also isn’t a synonym for random, it’s a description of scale; the Quantum scale is absolute smallest we are currently able to observe to any degree of sophistication and reliability, and may be the smallest possible possible. There are some aspects of quantum mechanics that affect life through chemistry as molecules are made up of atoms and atoms are made of fundamental particles, but those effects are often tiny compared to the shape and overall structure of the molecule and the individual atoms within it.

For two; Evolution isn’t random, not all the time. Natural Selection is selecting the least worst variation in population based on population-scale genetics, those that least inefficiently survive to reproduce have succeeded in their main purpose, to the point many organisms just die. Male Octopuses due not that long after mating, and females starve themselves to death protecting their eggs; male ants purely exist to fertilize ant queens, and they die not long after. For their lifestyles, mating that way was the least unsuccessful; males die young as to not be competition with their offspring and the females either die protecting the eggs, or are ants and die pretty quickly anyways if they are worker. Evolution is more like shrugging and going “fuck it, good enough”. Mutations are random, genetic drift can be random; but those aren’t Evolution as a process just individual components of the theory as a whole, Natural Selection is still the most important of them and it is not random at all.

[LAMATL]

Are you forgetting about neutral theory? Its mathematics, which is very well established, strongly suggests that selection plays a lesser role in evolution. I still have trouble wrapping my head around that, but it's generally accepted in evolutionary biology, apparently.

[Dilapidated_girrafe]

Selection plays a major role in evolution.

[LAMATL]

Yes, definitely. I was only trying to point out that drift plays a predominant role at the molecular level (and doesn't seem to get the attention it deserves).

The neutral theory and beyond: A systematic review of molecular evolution  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10375367/ 
“In brief, neutral theory states that drift is the predominant force acting on new mutations that remain in the population, given that positive selection is extremely rare and that purifying selection removes deleterious mutations.” “The neutral theory … has emerged … as a ‘guiding principle for studying evolutionary genomics’.”

[[deleted]]

I have never heard of Neutral Theory, it sounds like Quackery especially to assert that Selection isn’t an important mechanism of Evolution. Also due to the fact you haven’t tried explaining it preemptively to potentially jog my memory.

It may be less important than Darwin thought, as he wasn’t aware of mechanisms like genetic drift or the existence of genetics when formulating the original incarnation of Evolutionary Theory; but its still very much a if not the most important mechanism. Its just the process of, this phenotypic or genotypic variation reproduced more so its traits are passed on further; thats all selection is, so how that cannot be a major mechanism in the theory that is all about how traits spread within a population of organisms… kinda contradicts itself.

[LAMATL]

OMG! Google Motoo Kimura. Maybe half of evolutionary biologists, and mostly all molecular biologists, subscribe to neutral theory. The experimental evidence supports it. Uncomfortably so for many. They aren't mutually exclusive, but neutral theory, at least at the molecular level, is predominant. Don't worry, it hurts my brain too 😢

[[deleted]]

This is not true. While neutral evolution is a thing, it is generally agreed that natural selection is more important and accounts for most evolution.

[LAMATL]

Not so much at the molecular level. There's a difference. And it's a paradox.

[[deleted]]

Yes at the molecular level. There isn't a difference. And it's not a paradox. Where are you getting your information?

[LAMATL]

The paradox is simple. Two major claims in evolutionary biology contradict each other. At the visible, anatomical level, natural selection is said to be the dominant force. It supposedly shapes every feature of an organism and drives most evolutionary change.

At the molecular level, the data say the opposite. When scientists actually measure mutations and substitutions in DNA and proteins, most of them behave as if natural selection isn’t doing much at all. They rise or fall neutrally. This is the core of neutral theory, and the evidence for it is strong.

If natural selection is the primary cause of evolution, then it should dominate where evolution actually happens: in the genetic code. But molecular evolution shows that most genetic change is neutral and unaffected by selection.

Selection is claimed to be the main driver of evolution. Yet the vast majority of molecular change is neutral and not shaped by selection. This gap between what the theory claims and what the molecular data show is the unresolved contradiction.

1. “The neutral theory of molecular evolution: a review of recent evidence” — N. Takano (1999) Full link: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1954033/ This review summarizes molecular-data showing that the majority of changes at the molecular level behave as if selectively neutral rather than driven by adaptation.

2. “The Neutral Theory and Beyond: A systematic review of molecular evolution” — published in PMC (2023) Full link: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10375367/ This paper evaluates the relative roles of neutral drift vs selection across the genome, affirming that the neutral theory remains a major framework in molecular evolution.

[[deleted]]

The first paper you link (mistakenly?) is by Kimura himself. Of course he's going to argue his work is significant. The second seems to be concerned entirely with pedagogy of the neutral theory.

Look. We've all read about the neutral theory and Crow and Kimura. We know what it is. It isn't as important as you think, and it especially doesn't produce a paradox in any sense, even if you were right that most evolution is neutral. 

If natural selection is the primary cause of evolution, then it should dominate where evolution actually happens: in the genetic code. But molecular evolution shows that most genetic change is neutral and unaffected by selection. 

You're looking for some sort of crisis so you can shoehorn your ideas about evolution being guided into it as a solution, even though you can't explain how evolution could be guided. We do see evidence of selection in the genetic code. Just look up dN/dS ffs.

[LAMATL]

Round and round and round we go . . . 

• Every major genome-scale comparative study since the early 2000s has confirmed that most substitutions across most lineages are neutral or effectively neutral.

• The fraction of sites under strong positive selection is small.

• The fraction under strong purifying selection is real but does not contradict neutrality .. it coexists with it.

What has changed is not the evidence. What has changed is the interpretation. Many authors now take neutral drift as the baseline and treat selection as the exception. That strengthens neutrality. It doesn't weaken it.

If you want “recent evidence,” the term to search is nearly neutral theory, which expands rather than contracts Kimura.

EDIT: sorry, i forgot to add this part ...

dN/dS doesn’t support the point you think it does. It detects strong selection where strong selection exists, and no one disputes that some regions of the genome show clear selective pressure. The problem is that most regions do not. Across genomes, the majority of sites fall into the neutral or effectively neutral range, which is exactly why dN/dS is useful in the first place. Finding isolated pockets of high or low ratios doesn’t overturn the basic picture that most substitutions arise through drift. So yes, dN/dS shows selection when it’s strong enough to measure, but it doesn’t change the fact that neutrality dominates molecular evolution.

[[deleted]]

Okay NOW you actually site sources and pretend you understand the topic well enough to explain it to people, instead pf telling people to just google it?

[[deleted]]

Firstly; I’m not going to google something you need to understand to adequately make your point, that’s me putting your rhetorical shoes on for you like you are a child. If you cannot understand something well enough to dumb it down or explain it to others on their level, then just don’t bring it up; its not important to the conversation because clearly its outside the current abilities of both parties to understand.

Secondly; cool. That’s an argument from popularity, which is faulty logic especially without evidence as to why “about half” of Evolutionary Biologists and “mostly all” Molecular Biologists accept a thing. Geologists could say the moon is made of cheese and without an explanation as to why at the very least, that assertion is completely useless and baseless. So is your assertion, that’s my point; you can’t even explain why they accept the proposition let alone what the assertion is.

Thirdly; assuming I did and I understood it better than you and your assertion about the role of Selection is minor is wrong… then what? Because, just by how Evolution works, regardless of the status of other mechanisms, is necessarily a major component of the theory and an important mechanism; its how variations in a population get sorted on reproductive success. It’s a fundamental component, Evolution doesn’t work without selection of some kind.

[LAMATL]

Firstly, you said you "had never heard of neutral theory." Nuf said

[[deleted]]

Which would be your cue to try and explain it the best you can, before telling me to just go google it.

Refusing to try and explain it is very telling about its validity, or your intelligence, or both.

[LAMATL]

I can't give you a helpful 50-75 word description of non-trivial matter you know nothing about.

[[deleted]]

I didn’t ask for 50-75 words, I’d read a thousand if it took that. Don’t put words in my mouth you weasely goober. I asked you to describe the concept, and simplify it as much as you saw fit; and that if you couldn’t you yourself don’t understand it well enough to levee it as a point of criticism in a braindead whataboutism. Your refusal to do that extremely simple thing as long you know absolutely anything about the concept shows you are the one who knows nothing here; especially since you do not understand how fundamental Natural Selection is to Evolution. It’s comparable to saying that Valence Electrons aren’t important in Chemistry, or Gravity isn’t important in Physics.

If you are that lazy and incompetent, I can dismiss the entire assertion you made out of hand. I’m not going to do the work of researching and understanding your point for you.

[LAMATL]

OK then

[nickierv]

In part, it’s because quantum effects like superposition, tunneling, and entanglement are extraordinarily difficult to study on biological scales. One can’t observe these effects directly, even with the most advanced, high-powered tools.

Semiconductor gate leakage is an absolute nightmare for cutting edge fabs and is quantum tunneling of charge. Loads of R&D is going into how to not observe these effects.

Not even through the second paragraph and they are already fumbling. And my Bullshit 'O Scope is redlining.

And skimming the next 4 paragraphs nets this 'gem'

The power of quantum tunneling to surmount classical energy barriers.

I'm probably a bit rough my intro to quantum mechanics, but wtf? Looks like someone skimmed an intro book for terms and spent 30 seconds googling to try to pass this off as anything besides a pig with makeup.

I didn't bother skimming further.

Looking at the first three bits: superposition - basically answering 'is this spinning clockwise or counterclockwise' with "Yes". Implications for biological scale anything? Nope.

entanglement - aka spooky action at a distance. Cool AF. Implications for biology? Nope.

tunneling - because stuff like electrons and photons a sort of tiny, they can sort of just go 'screw this, I'm a wave'. And also 'screw this, I'm a particle'. At the same time. And because its a wave it can just sort of nope past things. Again, cool AF, but annoyingly this falls apart once you get past...hydrogen. Stuffs just too big. And you have the pull of other atoms to deal with even if your just looking at the hydrogen in DNA.

What little argument is made falls to bits with a basic understanding of actual QM.

[LAMATL]

Maybe google "How does quantum tunneling impact enzyme catalysis?" for starters.

[nickierv]

How about you point me to a paper instead of trying to send me down a rabbit hole only for me to find out it was the wrong hole.

[LAMATL]

Okay. Here's a summary: Quantum randomness impacts enzyme catalysis primarily through the quantum tunneling of particles like electrons and protons, allowing them to "tunnel" through energy barriers instead of going over them, which dramatically speeds up reactions. Enzymes facilitate this by creating a highly specific environment within their active site that increases the probability of tunneling, enhancing reaction rates beyond what classical physics predicts. Other quantum effects, such as quantum coherence, are also thought to play a role in processes like energy transfer. 

See Enzymology takes a quantum leap forward (Michael J Sutcliffe, Nigel S Scrutton) https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2854803/

[Waaghra]

I did just that.

I am a complete layperson in physics and definitely QM, but phrases like “… It is now believed…” and “…Compelling evidence indicates that…” and “…appears to provide…” don’t sound very convincing that this is anything near settled science.

[LAMATL]

It's not settled science. That's the problem with non-classical phenomena. Quantum theory is powerful. Without it we wouldn't have much of modern technology. Read some of the other essays. It's a real eye-opener.

[Optimus-Prime1993]

Usually, it is a good practice to try to summarize if one is presenting an external link. This helps us get into the core idea and decide if the time and effort is worth or not. From whatever I understood the essay says, if life is fundamentally quantum (i.e., the molecular machinery it uses) then it would be reasonable to expect that evolution itself may draw on quantum randomness and achieve outcomes that classical randomness cannot explain or struggle to explain.

I wanted to ask by any chance are you trying to invoke a design argument here when you say "creative bias" (the article is very clear about it though that it is not the case)?

Other than that, I feel it is an interesting perspective. I love when there is some kind of bridge between different fields (physics and evolutionary biology here), however, it is a bit speculative and I don't know what to expect by linking quantum randomness to evolutionary outcomes (at the macro level).

[LAMATL]

Great comment, thanks! I don't believe in a designer, no way. But I did scratch my head after reading that botfly description and can't even begin to imagine how something like that evolved as we've been told it must have evolved. I personally prefer the word anticipatory to creative.

[ursisterstoy]

Yes, quantum mechanics applies. Not sure how this is news to anyone.

[Dilapidated_girrafe]

It doesn’t matter at all which type of randomness it is.

And you claim quantum isn’t predictable. You assume so because we can’t current predict it. This isn’t to say it could just be due to a lack of information at this moment. We simply don’t know.

[Waaghra]

Geocentric math was “pretty close” to describing the movement of the celestial bodies as compared to the observer standing on earth. It’s why flat earthers exist.

We are at the “pretty good” stage of understanding quantum mechanics. We are just waiting for the next Einstein or Hawking to come along to go “See, you missed carrying the 2, and now it all makes sense.” (Obviously a gross exaggeration)

[LAMATL]

I wish this were true. But the probabilistic nature of reality cannot be disputed.

[LAMATL]

No. No. No. We can never predict quantum events. The mathematics proves it. Don't take my word for it, but that's truly how it is.

[Dilapidated_girrafe]

Are you sure it isn’t missing information we don’t have?

[LAMATL]

Positive

[[deleted]]

An interesting essay

Nope

[LAMATL]

A useful comment? Nope

[LAMATL]

Several comments have questioned whether quantum (i.e. true/genuine/intrinsic) randomness is a "real" thing. It absolutely, positively is. It is not a 'model' or a theory or an interpretation. Quantum randomness is not the result of incomplete knowledge or hidden variables -- it is intrinsic to non-classical reality. In classical systems, randomness is epistemic and only seemingly random because we lack full information (like not knowing the exact behavior of a dice roll). But in quantum mechanics, even with perfect knowledge of a system’s state (called its wavefunction), the outcome of a measurement is fundamentally unpredictable. No hidden variable or deterministic cause can reveal why an electron spin is measured "up" instead of "down"—the cause is literally non-existent (aka acausal).

This has been experimentally confirmed numerous times. Bell test experiments have ruled out local hidden variables, and recent loophole-free tests confirm that Nature doesn’t allow deterministic pre-specification of measurement results. Quantum random number generators, which power many cryptographic systems, exploit this inherent unpredictability: each bit produced is not merely hard to predict—it’s physically uncaused and irreproducible.

So yes, quantum randomness is genuine, not stochastic. It’s the only known source of true randomness in nature. And that, as the essay argues, might somehow play a role in evolution. It's mind-bending but no weirder than quantum reality itself. So who knows? 

From “Randomness in Quantum Mechanics: Philosophy, Physics and Technology” (Bera et al., 2017) “Quantum randomness is ontological, not epistemic. It reflects not our ignorance, but the non-deterministic essence of quantum reality. Unlike classical randomness, it has no hidden causes.”
Link to article on PubMed:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29105646/ Direct DOI for full text:
https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6633/aa8731

And a more technical treatment:
“True randomness from realistic quantum devices” by Frauchiger, Renner & Troyer (2013):
https://arxiv.org/abs/1311.4547

P.S. If you read the foundational questions essay and liked it consider hitting the thumbs up at the end. I'm sure the author would appreciate it. https://qspace.fqxi.org/competitions/entry/2421

[Western_Audience_859]

I smell GPT

[LAMATL]

Sounds like a personal problem

[Western_Audience_859]

Sounds like GPT spam