Longshanks wrote,

This is b.s.

There must be an original turtle, an Un-Supported Supporter.

The greatest conceivable Turtle? The Turtle who necessarily embodies all Turtley perfections?

The Big Bang is not something from nothing. It is something from something, which is the singularity that exploded.

Steve,
I doubt Johnjo McFadden's conclusions (if they really are his conclusions). I will have to try to dig up some of his papers.
Even if there were strains of bacteria that could increase their mutation rate in the presence strong selective pressures, this would in no way imply that the ability to do so was not a product of NeoDarwinian processes. Or that the bacteria were "aware" in any real sense, or that this adaptation, if indeed it is a real thing, has any implications for larger organisms.

I did notice that McFadden has a book out called Quantum Evolution. This immediately raises red flags for me, as the word quantum, when not used by a physicist generally implies a lot of wooly headed thinking is on the way.

I admit that I am a layman on these matters. I refer to John Cairn's work at Harvard as well as Barry Hall of Rochester. True, adaptive mutations are one among many possible mutations, but they seem to be unique in that they don't appear to be random but "aware" of the environment. Johnjoe McFadden (himself a microbiologist) points this discovery reveals itself quite forcefully with the superstrains of TB that have become reistant to 4 different kinds of antibiotic treatment. It certainly seems to point to some sort of purposeful mutating going on. Not the NeoDarwinian type.

Adaptive mutations are one among many possible mutations.

They don't though. Its a by-product of selection for other things.

Hello there Longshanks, Is that a pun? "psychological frameworks" for the idea of a chair? (har har). I really don't think it is playing a game if one is trying to delve into the deeper nature of things. These principle ideas have a real distinction. It would be like making a real or a logical distinction between velocity and what you choose to measure velocity with: feet per second, or meters per second. How you measure the velocity is a logical distinction the speed itself would be a real distinction. Your notion of psychological frameworks reminds me of Kant. Also, I think there is a real distinction between your brain and your mind. Thanks for reading.

Max, Thanks for the reply. Look, I don't think I'm being obsurantist by such an observation. Life doesn't tend, it struggles. Even the spider you mention (I'm recalling a film I saw of the Black Widow) struggles to get away. And believe me, that littel male spider was definitely trying to get away! And if they "sacrifice" they are driven to it by instinct. By matter groping, I think Penrose was referring to the molecular level. I am curious about your thoughts on adaptive mutations.

Probably because organisms that don't try to stay alive tend to leave fewer descendants than those who do.

However this drive you seem thinks to characterize living things isn't wholly present. At least one species of spiders have males, who after they mate, allow the female to eat them. Males who are removed before the female can consume them leave fewer descendants because a female that hasn't fed tends to go prowling for food and ends up mating again.

Evolutionary processes seem good at creating living things that are good at breeding. and getting to an age where they can do this.

I think you're missing Penrose's point. Living things have a goal to stay alive. Why is that?