My question: Can DNA discern between quantum states? Or is that a poorly chosen and potentially misleading word? According to a science-news headline from earlier this year --
DNA Can Discern Between Two Quantum States, Research Shows
As a skeptic, I wondered what the research actually did "show" that was later described as discerning. The core of the finding, it seems, consisted of . . .
The researchers fabricated self-assembling, single layers of DNA attached to a gold substrate. They then exposed the DNA to mixed groups of electrons with both directions of spin. Indeed, the team's results surpassed expectations: The biological molecules reacted strongly with the electrons carrying one of those spins, and hardly at all with the others. [emphases added]
Oh-oh. More questions. Is "reacting strongly" with some and not others "discerning"? What is discerning? Well, Dictionary.com carries this definition:
showing good or outstanding judgment and understanding
Both judgment and understanding imply conscious deliberation. Or, at least, non-conscious decision-making. Is that what the DNA molecules are doing? I doubt it. That seems like a huge stretch. And to really split hairs, can molecules alone even be biological? Or are they molecules found in biological organs and organisms?
Would the reacting of the DNA be better described in mechanical vs. intentional terms? I think so.
It gets worse, this anthropomorphizing of quantum effects at the molecular level:
The longer the molecule, the more efficient it was at choosing electrons with the desired spin, while single strands and damaged bits of DNA did not exhibit this property. These findings imply that the ability to pick and choose electrons with a particular spin stems from the chiral nature of the DNA molecule, which somehow "sets the preference" for the spin of electrons moving through it.
Arghh! There is no choosing! The molecules merely reacted -- dumbly, if you will -- one way or others depending the direction of an electron's spin (the quantum element).
If you ask me, this article should have come with a sub-head warning:
MISLEADING CONTENT AHEAD! ALL WOO-IMPLICATIONS TRANSMITTED VIA SLOPPY LANGUAGE USE AND SHOULD BE VIEWED THAT WAY!
Leave a Reply