Evolution, or just adaptation?

That's a bold statement. Why do you think so?

~~ Paul

from memory, there were a couple of papers published on these experiments that I read, I think I was introduced to them by Johnjoe Mcfadden. I didn't see any reason to dispute his conclusions, or the authors results, at the time.

That's a bold statement. Why do you think so?

~~ Paul

Fast adaptation has been observed all along in nature.  You seem to discount mind (as information processing) in the picture.  Living things respond to feedback, any quick read in homeostasis and ecology will spell it out.  In the life of an individual it is manifest as instinct.  Instinct as built-in information objects that logically guides a response.

For several decades now, the research delineates how the genomes of organisms have processing activity that has depth of experience.  How long did it take for oil eating bacteria to develop after the Gulf oil spill.  They were redy to adapt to a new food source because the chemical pathways could be activated.

You can think it's "magic" chemistry ................or you can learn the sciences describing how mind does it naturally thru feedback in the environment.

I'd be curious to read what you make of this?  https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-e...4#pid46724

Seems directionally similar to the comment of Max's you questioned.

Fascinating paper. I have no problem with the possibility that certain kinds of mutations are not random. It is possible that extra-genomal information accumulates in DNA or elsewhere and then alters the probabilities of certain mutations.

I would just be careful not to read more into this than it deserves. In particular, Livnat makes it clear that they do not yet understand the processes that led to the observed result.

~~ Paul

Fast adaptation has been observed all along in nature.  You seem to discount mind (as information processing) in the picture.  Living things respond to feedback, any quick read in homeostasis and ecology will spell it out.  In the life of an individual it is manifest as instinct.  Instinct as built-in information objects that logically guides a response.

For several decades now, the research delineates how the genomes of organisms have processing activity that has depth of experience.  How long did it take for oil eating bacteria to develop after the Gulf oil spill.  They were redy to adapt to a new food source because the chemical pathways could be activated.

You can think it's "magic" chemistry ................or you can learn the sciences describing how mind does it naturally thru feedback in the environment.

I'm entirely willing to consider nonrandom mutations. However, I have no idea what you mean by "you can learn the sciences describing how mind does it naturally thru feedback in the environment." I'm not even sure why you think mind has anything to do with it. The paper cited above certainly does not make any such suggestion.

~~ Paul

Fascinating paper. I have no problem with the possibility that certain kinds of mutations are not random. It is possible that extra-genomal information accumulates in DNA or elsewhere and then alters the probabilities of certain mutations.

I would just be careful not to read more into this than it deserves. In particular, Livnat makes it clear that they do not yet understand the processes that led to the observed result.

~~ Paul

I agree fully on not reading too much into it, but I think the nuance is to which perspective you offer this advice?

For the theist, for example, this does not prove the existence of God.

However, for the scientific materialist I think this creates problems for that worldview.  If its not "random" (which is a concept I've never understood and struggle to see any coherence in the notion), then what is it?  What is the source for the appearance of purposeful mutation?  Are there laws associated with this and if so what is the source of these laws?

I agree fully on not reading too much into it, but I think the nuance is to which perspective you offer this advice?

For the theist, for example, this does not prove the existence of God.

However, for the scientific materialist I think this creates problems for that worldview.  If its not "random" (which is a concept I've never understood and struggle to see any coherence in the notion), then what is it?  What is the source for the appearance of purposeful mutation?  Are there laws associated with this and if so what is the source of these laws?

Yes, those are good questions.

As far as random mutations are concerned, a mutation caused by a cosmic ray is certainly random with respect to the creature's DNA, even if somehow the cosmic particle was not created randomly. That is, unless you ascribe to the proposition that the particle and the DNA were a preplanned combination of events.

The source might be environmental or internal pressures on noncoding DNA or histones or chromatin or whatever, which result in structural changes. And then these structural changes favor certain kinds of mutations.

Biology is complicated. I'm sure there are many things going on that we do not yet understand.

~~ Paul