The unselfish gene | Denis Noble challenges Richard Dawkins
Vložit
- čas přidán 13. 03. 2024
- Denis Noble takes on Richard Dawkins on the causality of change in genetics. Do genes control the organism or does the organism control its genes? Can organisms change their DNA?
Watch the full debate at: iai.tv/video/the-gene-machine...
Dawkins' Selfish Gene has been hugely influential, both within evolutionary biology and in the wider public sphere. It's a beautifully simple story: genes and not organisms drive evolutionary change. But critics argue the story is simplistic. The effect of a gene is not always the same and as is dependent on its host and the cell environment. DNA does not come neatly divided into individual genes. And in 2010 the renowned biologist EO Wilson and others revived the case for group selection. Some are now arguing that the Selfish Gene paradigm is holding back medical research.
Is it time to move on and acknowledge that Dawkins' theory is not the whole story? Might his theory be making a fundamental mistake in reducing humans to machines? Or does the Selfish Gene remain a remarkably powerful and accurate account of who we are?
World-famous scientist Richard Dawkins goes head-to-head with celebrated biologist Denis Noble as they lock horns over the role of genes over the eons.
Güneş Taylor hosts.
#IsTheSelfishGeneTrue #CausalChangeInGenetics #IsDawkinsRight
The Institute of Art and Ideas features videos and articles from cutting edge thinkers discussing the ideas that are shaping the world, from metaphysics to string theory, technology to democracy, aesthetics to genetics. Subscribe today! iai.tv/subscribe?Y...
For debates and talks: iai.tv
For articles: iai.tv/articles
For courses: iai.tv/iai-academy/courses
What do you think - can organisms change their DNA? Let us know your thoughts in the comments! To watch the full talk, visit: iai.tv/video/the-gene-machine?CZcams&+comment
As Noble says "We don't yet know it's effect", but we'll just go ahead with the CRISPR program anyway without knowing the long term effects.
would like to watch it but unfortunately I have to pay a subscription.
DNA changes through mutations and partial, and sometimes total, crossover.. CRISPR only speeds things up. Long term effects are never predictable either way. Just remember mathematical chaos and how it manifests in nature like the butterfly effect.
Denis Noble speaks beautifully, with care and gentleness for his topic a pleasure to listen to! It has been so long since hearing someone talk about science with such a respect and kindness for what he talks about, thank you for sharing!
@@BulentBasaran There is something powerful than gene & doing evolution with add mixing genes in nature. Its controlling everything like a simulation.
The title of this should be: Richard Dawkins meets a Time Lord and his companion
Yeah but when's K9 going to show up?
If only I could upvote 10 times
😂😂😂
😅😅😅
@mistermuso I feel that your comment doesn't have _nearly enough_ 'likes'....
THAT is how you debate and discuss (at times) opposing ideas. So respectful of each other, acknowledging and connecting each others sucesses, yet debating the questionable with such elegance. 👌 Amazing what we both know and don't know in biology.
Gentleman having a civil discussion, any politicians watching how it's done.
Don't make me laugh.
It's because Noble a fellow biologist. However religious people and scientists that claim to be religious he shows less respect for, sometimes none.
@@TheGreatPerahia Yes, I think Dawkins should stick to biology. I don't think he has made any contribution at all to the religion/god/atheism debate. He seems incapable of empathy when talking to religious people.
@@jonathancrick1424 nah.. He's done pretty good in that field as well.. Pretty good arguments
@@harsewaksingh3829 Yeah, but how hard is it to construct a logical argument against a belief in God(s)? How many believers has he converted with his unassailable logic? He as condescending jerk and terrible at delivering a persuasive argument. Plus, he's hypocritical. Have you ever heard him wax poetic on the transcendent beauty of the natural world? The natural world is neither beautiful nor transcendant. Not until a human projects that perspective onto it. He's searching for meaning just as much as religious people who see a god or gods behind it all. To be a real atheist, one has to acknowledge that there _is_ no inherent meaning to any of this. Most all of us are religious when the concept is considered broadly. Dawkins seems to have no awareness of the incredible privileges he has as a person with the background and intelligence he inherited, all of which brought him to his perspective. Not everyone is so lucky. Plus, does he ever stop to consider the existence of religious belief across literally all human culture as far back as we can look? Wouldn't that suggest that there may be some evolutionary benefit to whatever it is that makes us this way? He's an intelligent man, Dawkins, but only in a very narrow line of inquiry. And what about the whole selfish gene thing? I agree with his colleague. Dawkins' idea seems to imply some sort of volition that can't be there. And have you ever heard his hypothesis about bats hearing in color? Watch how excited he gets talking about that idea, one that is based on no empirical evidence whatsoever. Sorry for the crazy response. Obviously, I have my issues with Dawkins.
A marvelous debate between Topological thinking and Population thinking.
I think this is a conversation where the average joe is required to simply nod and smile!😂
I think the idea that the surface being affected by the nucleus through calcium networks is novel to me
@@Marenqo I'm smiling. I'm nodding! 😂
@@garryharriman7349 😆
@@Marenqo I'm pretty sure that Prof. Noble was talking about it the other way round: the nucleus being affected by what happened at the surface.
I respectfully disagree. All he is saying is that organisms ( ourselves included) are able to exert some control on how we evolve over time by either changing in response to our environment and/or changing our environment directly.
When I first studied molecular biology in the 1980's at Northwestern University, my professors and fellow students believed me to be a bit over-exuberant when I had the insight that the cytoskeleton--of which microtubules are a part--has a vastly important role in cellular function. Now, almost 40 years later, it is quite validating to learn that maybe I wasn't so dumb after all.
Richard and Denis trying to self replicate Paul Weller's haircut!!
Love The Jam !!!!!!!
Neo-evolutionary theory a la Dawkins is for the Dodos
Lights going out and a kick in the balls,
I’ll tel ya,
that’s evolution, that’s evolution.
Wait till you see Daniel Dennett and his hair-facial hair grooming fashion: Charles Darwin reincarnate.
like so much else in science they failed to replicate or the results are far worse than the original
Maybe I'm missing something that Dennis Noble covers in the full discussion, but Dawkins wrote in the Selfish Gene that an organism's behaviour and environment can lead to the switching on and off of gene expression and so change the path of its offsprings' evolution
And no evidence of that whatsoever but you "strictly evidence-based" people believe anything that conforms to your beliefs.
Denis was referring to the cells ability to replicate, specifically when Dawkins mentioned inserting your genetic code into a futuristic sequencer (hypothetically 10,000 years from now), which then, would be able to generate an exact copy of the (human) life from which the genetic code was taken from (behavior, memes, or anything like that was not necessarily the topic here). The problem is that it can be hard to imagine how you can get past the DNA polymerase ability to proofread the nucleotides during transcription with such pin point accuracy, if this isn't done correctly/perfectly how could you even think to create a 1:1 replica. While, it may be easy to say "Well in the future we will have an answer," but in practice (with todays tech) the likely hood something could replicate that process virtually 1:1 without any errors seems highly unlikely, bordering on imaginative. Worst case scenario, with the amount of potential errors that could result, it does not even seem likely that it would create something can that sustain life properly, let alone thrive (needs a living cell)...but...I am not one to bet against technology though, so 10,000 years from now, there might be a retro amusement park with exact replicas of us roaming around having a good time.
@@justcrap3703 back that up. Thank you.
@jiimmyyy They do not have to back their claim up as they are saying there is no evidence, it is impossible for him to show that there is no evidence.
It is up to you to show that he is wrong by showing him the "evidence".
@@justcrap3703 You’re saying that epigenetics doesn’t exist or that you cannot change the genetics of offspring through epigenetics?
Example of fist and Scotland dist. Is good for comparison but at molecular or intracellular level the speed of information transfer on comparitve scale is very very high...!!
This was completely fascinating 👏👏👏
It’s all very interesting but in the end I’m still going to bed, so good night ya all good people 😊
Are you going to attempt replication and has your significant other agreed to this experiment?
Dawkins avoided the question, totally
Fascinating! ❤
To be read in the voice of David Attenborough .
Respect is paramount in this debate ,
if either Sensei was to draw their sword ,
they would have to draw blood as an act of honour ,
or commit Harri-Enfield , as a homage to their ancestors .
( although , if you're a young earth creationist , scrub the ancestor bit , we're talking Lucy's grandads here .)
Dennis is so knowledgeable and very succinct, Dawkins was floundering.
I think our host here, Güneş Taylor, had the best time of her life here :D
Between these two, I believe more in Denis noble's idea that the organism controls the genome, and not the other way around.
And there was me hoping to hear about the genetics of the Unsel Fish
“…and Rosiland Franklin…” (3:05) - Huzzah!
There's no link at the end.
This is the kind of debate that is far too rare. Both sides use facts and logic and so neither can be totally wrong.
Is it just me or is it impossible to read the phrase "facts and logic" in a voice other than Ben Shapiro's
"facts" is a big problem.
When is a fact? If it's something coming from an experiment involving statistics, maybe not necessarily a fact.
Logic is another problem
@zachkent2575 that's what I was going for.
Thsi kind of debate is not so rare. It's just that most of it isn't political and isn't televised.
@@Drew-de7ey I need to get out more.
13:45
Wait what? Actual change in the DNA sequence? That would be huge. Why haven't we all heard about that. I thought that what goes on in the cell could only change gene expression, not the sequence
And why did you think that "what goes on in the cell could only change gene expression, not the sequence"?
Noble is saying that "being A Good Boy has good effects on your genes".
I LIKE him, and always kind of thought that The Selfish Gene was inaccurate and didn't really EXPLAIN that it was a manifesto of rebellion against the scientists. (Obviously, manners are what have been keeping us alive because they are the most basic level of social awareness, through which evolution takes place. Writing books about science is for Dedicated Scientists to do, rather than Any Weirdo who has gained access to a keyboard)
I need people like Noble because the others are very dangerous extremists who do not submit to Reason (because they are publicly implying that they specifically don't believe in Reason, as per their choice which they've already made).
Never care about whistleblowers. Let's be honest: they simply show up in the news when "we" are being demonstrated why whistleblowing, as a concept, has no place in society (or even reality). "Leaking info" has no meaning because nobody can come up with such an idea without there being something very, very wrong about the way that he was raised. Parenting is, in fact, Specifically NOT A RELIGION.
So, if your manager is telling you to keep him up to date, he might be "on a different side than you". This paranoia, along with the adage, "Better to be a nobody in my nation than A King of any other nation", causes the political divisions within every border. The truth is that neither side is pure enough to get the vote of Reason. Reason would be unstoppable. Reason would change the meaning of everyone's citizenships.
You Are willing to become a victim in order to expose the truth, but that's a waste of time.
So its not sure how changes in cells actually results in changed genes and dna. Its proven that the surface has impact on cells though. The theory is not complete without proving how this changes DNA.
Yes you are correct that the traditional view is animal cells never (intentionally) change the DNA sequence in their genome. I have a masters degree in cell biology and I've never heard of that happening. Whatever research Noble is describing must be very new. He seems to be suggesting that there is a seen but unknown method by which cells can sense environmental stimuli and use that to alter the DNA sequence in their genome, mediated on some level by calcium signalling and transport along microtubules.
I was really quite annoyed that Noble made this huge claim about cells changing their DNA sequence in response to stimuli, researched by two of his students, and then spent 3 minutes describing something completely irrelevant (how transport of messenger proteins occurs). The video ends at the precise moment it was about to get interesting. I might go and watch the full version because I want to know now.
@@TheRABIDdude Yes, this. Nothing can happen inside the cell without the transfer of information through chemicals and their electric potentials. Unless one is selling the spiritual "add-on" side of things. At which point I duck out of the discussion.
Firstly, the potential for "intended" change would already need to be part of the DNA strand as well as the structure of the cell and its constituent molecules.
As far as I am aware, the cell already has mechanisms for transferring types of information from the surface of the cell to the DNA, in order to manage the expression of sequences and the suppression of others, in order for the cell to produce the proteins, enzymes and other outputs it needs to as part of it's function within its tissue context. For example, it might need to secrete a particular hormone in response to the varying presence of some agent outside the cell.
Traditionally we understand that base changes do take place through replication errors that are not picked up by the reparase mechanisms that continuously "proofread" the strands. Similarly with non-fatal errors caused by irradiation or chemical action. Most non-fatal error repairs are possible because of the "mirror image" nature of the strands.
But to have base changes that seem to be the result of "intentionality" in response to information coming from outside the cell rather than by "accident" is suggesting that there is a degree of "programming" somewhere within the "code" whereby the "cell brain" can "know" what function the cell needs to be coded to perform that it currently doesn't. It would imply that the cell would even have some sort of "knowledge" that there is something outside the cell that it needs to adapt to.
Where such information would be stored and how it might possibly be activated and expressed when needed would have to be identified. Are there structures that might be candidates for such a process?
I would like to see what evidence there is for this actually taking place that cannot be explained by the normal trial and error model of cell operation. It starts to sound a little far fetched to me.
Very interesting, Does anyone here agree Dennis looks like the iconic 1st Doctor Who played by the brilliant William Hartnell? 😂❤
Ah yes! Good catch. .... Well actually no, I have no idea what you're referring to, but thought if I agree I might come across as an intellectual. I am shamed...
@@fartpooboxohyeah8611 lol 😆
He does. that was the first one then the pissed guy from the fast show.very very drunk at the time
Dutch Starvation study proves Denis absolutely correct. The environment of the 'proof reader' effects the 'content of the novel' despite the words put to the script.
For single cells; the 'tubulins' just have to change gene expression, not the nucleus genome itself; they just have to interact with the proteins effecting gene expression. To provide a mechansm for evolution other than just survival or sex; the method must somehow allow the egg cell to change its ncleus genome based on survivability needs of the organism. To be able to somehow overcome the 'averaging' issue for the whole organism's survival that Richard rightly points out. That survival averaging muddles 'selection of the fitest' and can't support the many evolutionary selections at once that the genome somehow accomlishes.
Much of this theory says there is not a will and no ability involved.
To be egoistic is both.
Where's the full discussion?
There's a link in the description that begins "Watch the full debate at..."
@NuisanceMan Thanks, I couldn't see it on my smartphone format.
A noble discussion
The non-local influences on the local, and subject like will of interiority are important aspects -along with non-zeroity, I think, does not let life be explained by pure materiality.
This was truly fascinating. I’m not a scientist, but from my VERY right brain POV, I find it to be a bit of an Ouroboros issue-did the gene make the cell or did the cell invent the gene? Maybe they’re both invented by the mind?
For example, what if the mind does make a gene that determines our death? Or a gene that makes us like Beyonce, resonating within us and within her at the same time? Maybe same goes for Swifties, or fans of Heavy Metal. Or spiritual folk vs atheists. Just consciousness resonating at the same frequency-enough to find harmony with some and dissonance with others.
There’s so many valid expressions of life, but some always become larger than others via evolution and the passage through time.
Neither, God created both, and you'll probably laugh, I can't explain what God is, but science is now looking more to God, than evolution, the wheels have come off evolution...
@@nigellee9824 I agree “God” made it all. But I also think God IS the mind. And science also seems to be moving towards that idea.
@@nigellee9824 This is incorrect.
@@nigellee9824 i disagree that is a very simple and close minded if not prehistoric answer god is your brain telling you shut up and let him live in peace god is the answer to everything when you dont actually have the talent or will to find an answer
Is this not an old recording?
Yeah I think this is *several* years old now. Like 2015ish?
@@Airehcaz didnt they mention covid
13:46 @@Airehcaz
Not that old. Noble mentions coronavirus about five minutes in.
Wrong of CZcams not to require date of production stamps... They refuse to do that..
This is interesting stuff, but my attention was focused purely on this beautiful lady and her amazing dress. Gotta watch it again now.
Using data processing as a metaphor. There is data, process and an operating system.
We stress the data (DNA) but ignore the process (Cell, enzyme
... ... etc).
The operating system (soul/conciousness?) Is running the data through the processes.
So who's Operating and who's the User. I love the metaphor and where free will fits into all this.
Good chat!
I have to say I don't fully understand Denis Noble's point. He seems to be unable to engage with Dawkins' abstraction. The genes define how the cell is built in the first place. That they can change to some extent, either in their expression or their actual makeup doesn't really contradict dawkins overall view. Its somewhat orthogonal to it.
As fascinating as it was to learn about how information is transmitted through a cell, the video seems to be a rather clumsily clipped excerpt that lacks the context required to understand what Prof. Noble's overall point was. I think we need to watch the full debate. It can be watched on the website of the Institute of Art and Ideas. I suppose the purpose of this excerpt was just to get us agitated enough to get off CZcams and go to their website to watch the whole thing.
Denis doesn't have much of a point. Lots of hand waving and irrelevant details. Dawkins has the logical higher ground.
Denis point is that a cell can not be never exactly replicated due to the fact the irreductibiliy of complexity of the cell and the nucleus. Dawkins doesn't really understand what is he talking about.
@@andyshinskateDenis has no point, just hand waving and irrelevancies. Yet, despite his incoherent ramblings, he's said nothing about "irreducible complexity," another idiotic canard. Dawkins has the higher logical ground in all this.
@@bigbrointhesky It's such an irony that you bring insults as arguments. Are you the one who criticizes Denis set of plausible thoughts?
Genes are one thing, memory of function is another.
Genes only code for protein, if that
@@hosoiarchives4858 They do much more... then culture codes, well, a fair amount.
The title should be two old men arguing about biology.
.
.
.
.
.
Jk, its always a pleasure to listen to Doc Dawkins.
Life is a highly dynamic circular system, it doesn’t have a start or an end!
So it's infinite?
Can you support your claim with anything substantial ? Other than some spiritualism word salad
So the lion king was right
@@nephastgweiz1022 all evidence of phenomena with any form of longevity, e.g. DNA, galaxies, tornadoes or magnetism have spiralled circular recycling and repeating functions.
I don't self-replicate because i hear it can make you go blind. I know I have the unselfish gene because I am very kind to my cats. If someone wants to replicate me, I would consider it unethical. They mention Schrödinger, but he had terrible ideas about cats, who obviously did not have an unselfish gene. edit: spelling
thank god you dont self replicate, because one pointless punt is already too many
@@11235butself replicate this 🖕
Nobody (intelligent) thinks that people are self replicators. It's the genes that are replicated. I think they got a bit confused with anlogies at one point because Dawkins definitely does NOT believe that you can clonme a person from their DNA. A close physical and psychological match certainly but much less alike than identical twins because the environment of the clone growing up would be radicaly different. Watch The Boys from Brazil - A great movie.
You are right, they discussing metaphorically. I believe Dawkins is philosopher.-scientist I was trying to make a joke. To clone oneself is well past my means. @@N.i.c.k.H
Sadly, the simple naming of this as the "Selfless Gene" would have helped gain more of an audience.
I know. Such a short-sighted missed opportunity!
It would also have avoided Dawkins's thesis being abused by right-wing libertarians for their own cynical ends -- such as William Rees-Mogg (the execrable Jacob's dad) and James Dale Davidson in their book 'The Sovereign Individual'. I suspect, however, that Dawkins chose that title because it sounded it sounded nicely 'hard-headed' and therefore 'scientific' and would, he supposed, be more attractive to the many readers who like big, brutal ideas than, say, 'The Generous Gene'. And, unfortunately, I think his supposition was correct: such ideas and titles do attract readers. I recommend 'Killer Apes, Naked Apes, and Just Plain Nasty People: The Misuse and Abuse of Science in Political Discourse', by Richard J. Perry; John Hopkins University Press
Except selfless and unselfish are not synonyms
@@emilsadykhov123 umm... yes they are.
@@timothyharris4708those hard headed titles will attract readers in the future when life might get harder, but in 2024, I have no clue where have you heard that. I am sure that nobody in your academic circles. You just presume people would because, you know, people are evil. Well, other people. Is a simple case of Neo Marxism getting to you. It happens often.
What's not covered here is how enzymes repair the DNA. They would need to know which side of the double helix is correct and which side incorrect. I thought the Ca2+ messenger discussed was going to cover that.
The only way I can see repair working is by a 1 to many comparison with other cells. That would mean a tubulin connection to the cell membrane and a neighbouring cell across membranes or via channels.
perhaps there is a role for viruses to play.
I believe in E.coli, they use the pattern of methylation on CATG (or some sequence anyway). The enzyme removes the bases that are in the unmethylated strand. A methylated strand is typically the original DNA hence the unmethylated strand is the new one.
@Daniel_Hanrahan right , that makes sense so need for comparison with other cells.
Every cell has a nucleic acid copy book.
@@Humanity101-zp4sq except for mature red blood cells and finger nails and such.
I agree with whoever is right.
Unwatchable due to CZcams advertisement. Thank you CZcams - not.
use a ad blocker
Use Brave
Or an "autoskipper" like Ad Skipper
I can understand what Dawkins is saying. Noble, on the other hand….
Dawkins speaks mostly of darwinistic selection on the scale of populations, and adds time to fill out the gaps to explain 'how it happened". It's the easier topic.
What Noble is going on about is molecular biology, and it's seriously the harder topic. What he's asking is how it can happen, like what mechanism is *actually* doing the thing that Dawkins just assumes exists.
If you like the harder topic, try looking up Dr. James Tour and his scientific challenges to the origin of life community (like Lee Cronin).
At present, in my understanding is that no one have found these mechanisms, but a certain part of the naturalistic people mostly have faith that it exists. Others are less optimistic, and they think the book needs to be opened again so we can look perhaps less biased in other directions than the one Dawkins in on.
📍9:55
Perhaps just me but I immediately find the need to critically examine any argument that resorts to metaphor at the outset: 'almost like a crystal'. Schrödinger's work "What is Life" is hugely insightful and thought-provoking but predates the discovery of DNA and was of course written by a physicist. The metaphor is outdated, Almost Like A Whale.
I'd say almost more like a cat in a box. (or was it??)
@@rigelb9025 Indeed! Almost Like a Whale is the title of a book by the evolutionary biologist Steve Jones that closely follows the format of Origin of Species but in a modern context. A good read :)
@@ianactually Neat
You are biased. You did not follow the argument at all.
@@kofipapa2886Rather than directing an ad hominem accusation at me personally, why not elaborate on precisely which part of my statement is biased and why, and what leads you to falsely believe that I didn't follow the argument?
How can an organism "change its genes? What is the mechanism of inheritance?
Mutations can be induced in reproductive cells, meaning those mutations have a potential to be passed on. Also if epigenetic alterations like methylation, which influences to what degree genes are "activated", happen in reproductive cells they might be passed along too (although there are also cellular mechanisms to undo these alterations)
@@correlolelo Today habitat is found much static due to resources at hand, we don't we find mutations of all different sought which otherwise could have been eliminated?
Such changes cannot be the selective pressure. Thus they cannot drive evolution in any specific direction. Denis does not understand the algorithm of natural selection.
That's the big question that evolutionary biologists can never ever produce any proof of... They say mutations and natural selection, but no mutation increasing information has ever been observed. And the process supposedly takes millions of years so good luck with getting any further than that.
Epigenetics
what exactly is the issue they disagree on?
Noble is saying that "being A Good Boy has good effects on your genes".
I LIKE him, and always kind of thought that The Selfish Gene was inaccurate and didn't really EXPLAIN that it was a manifesto of rebellion against the scientists. (Obviously, manners are what have been keeping us alive because they are the most basic level of social awareness, through which evolution takes place. Writing books about science is for Dedicated Scientists to do, rather than Any Weirdo who has gained access to a keyboard)
I need people like Noble because the others are very dangerous extremists who do not submit to Reason (because they are publicly implying that they specifically don't believe in Reason, as per their choice which they've already made).
Never care about whistleblowers. Let's be honest: they simply show up in the news when "we" are being demonstrated why whistleblowing, as a concept, has no place in society (or even reality). "Leaking info" has no meaning because nobody can come up with such an idea without there being something very, very wrong about the way that he was raised. Parenting is, in fact, Specifically NOT A RELIGION.
So, if your manager is telling you to keep him up to date, he might be "on a different side than you". This paranoia, along with the adage, "Better to be a nobody in my nation than A King of any other nation", causes the political divisions within every border. The truth is that neither side is pure enough to get the vote of Reason. Reason would be unstoppable. Reason would change the meaning of everyone's citizenships.
You Are willing to become a victim in order to expose the truth, but that's a waste of time.
Bro
@@seanrowshandel1680 the author of the book is meaningless if the book is well written and, of course, true.
Imagine that in a dystopian future they would clone him just to show him this video. It gives me chills honestly.
1:09 Because, Richard, you ignore quantum mechanics. This is a _very_ common failing. People who believe that human brain is a computer, for example, make the same mistake: they assume the 18th-century physics (aka. classical mechanics and, later, classical electrodynamics) are enough to model those processes. Yet in real life, to model even the _simplest_ configurations, like only a single pair of elementary particles (an electron and a muon, say) already requires the full strength of quantum electrodynamics. Biologists (and computer scientists) are just so charmingly naïve about all this.
I agree that quantum mechanics exists and is influencing the world in various ways. But from what I understand, biological systems are more or less "immune" against it. For example for something to happen in any cell in your body the cell have to get to a minimum threshold value before the cell fires a signal. Quantum mechanics are random and can therefore not get big enough to influence a cell because all the small quantum mecanistic randomness will cancel each other out or be too small to matter. That's the explanasion I have heard for why quantum mechanics doesn't matter in biological systems. But I am not too knowledgable in this field to say for certain if this is the case. I want to hear counter arguments if anyone got something :)
Hmmmm. No mention of epigenetics?
wow Denis Noble brilliant explanation of the complexity of Living Proteins chemicals communication to change DNA
Denis Noble misses the. point and seems more interested in having a platform for other research on cellular singling
to me personally, Dawkins makes much more sense
I think it’s amazing how many experts are watching this.
😂
And how few are commenting.
Wow - what exposure, knowledge and understanding this man has, leading to clarity and confidence in the material. 🍂🍃🌈 I must now look at the whole discussion!
Here are two men??🧐
If all is energy at different rates of vibration why are we trying to decipher the information in the gene at the level of biology. If there is information in the forces we should start there. That would be the work of physicists not biologists. Biologists, especially Darwinists, have a tendency to act as if biology is the origin of life itself rather than the origin of form, starting with the cell and the gene operating within it.
Without energy, force, electricity, electromagnetism and magnetism, there would not be cells, genes, or forms, and biological forms certainly did not create the forces. Today we need a bird’s eye view of reality, it would be more realistic and pertinent to the quantum perspective of today’s world than the worm’s eye view that prevailed in the 19th century, which was focused on biology not forces or on how they informed and shaped biology.
This is like a guy who changes oil for a living (Noble) arguing with the chief design engineer at Porsche (Dawkins) about how cars work. Yes you are an expert at changing oil. Thank-you for doing that.
Yeah, kinda. Good analogy.
Terrible analogy. Especially considering that Dawkins is more like the Minister of Propaganda in a totalitarian dictatorship whose primary directive is to completely eradicate any notion of design in the universe.
@@elgatofelix8917 Any why does that make you mad? I can tell you are religious geez
The question should have been put simply: are you saying the genetic sequence in a person's sperm cells changes in adaptive ways between ages 15 and 40 in response to environment. (Not random cellular damage, adaptive change replicated in many sperm cells) If not there is no argument to be had. (Citing sperm only because it is so basic as nothing more than a bundle of genetic information. Feel free to substitute ovum.)
Is Denis claiming that cells can decide what specific, new mutations they need by sensing the environment and then actively triggering the needed mutations? Or is Denis just talking about SOS modes and things of that sort? I've seen his work. To my knowledge, neither he nor anyone else has demonstrated that cells can figure out what specific mutation they need and then give it to themselves. If anyone reading this knows of this actually being done, let me know the names of the papers this was shown in.
Yes, the environment plays a role in what genes are turned on and off
Noble is saying that "being A Good Boy has good effects on your genes".
I LIKE him, and always kind of thought that The Selfish Gene was inaccurate and didn't really EXPLAIN that it was a manifesto of rebellion against the scientists. (Obviously, manners are what have been keeping us alive because they are the most basic level of social awareness, through which evolution takes place. Writing books about science is for Dedicated Scientists to do, rather than Any Weirdo who has gained access to a keyboard)
I need people like Noble because the others are very dangerous extremists who do not submit to Reason (because they are publicly implying that they specifically don't believe in Reason, as per their choice which they've already made).
Never care about whistleblowers. Let's be honest: they simply show up in the news when "we" are being demonstrated why whistleblowing, as a concept, has no place in society (or even reality). "Leaking info" has no meaning because nobody can come up with such an idea without there being something very, very wrong about the way that he was raised. Parenting is, in fact, Specifically NOT A RELIGION.
So, if your manager is telling you to keep him up to date, he might be "on a different side than you". This paranoia, along with the adage, "Better to be a nobody in my nation than A King of any other nation", causes the political divisions within every border. The truth is that neither side is pure enough to get the vote of Reason. Reason would be unstoppable. Reason would change the meaning of everyone's citizenships.
You Are willing to become a victim in order to expose the truth, but that's a waste of time.
Actually Perry Marshall has an interesting paper.
“Biology transcends the limits of computation”
And he states:
“Turing mathematics shows causation in biology is not chemicals - > code - > cognition but cognition - > chemicals - > code.”
@@GodID7 That paper doesn't show a mechanism. What is the system Denis seems to think exists for translating input from the environment into a specific mutation to meet the challenge of that environment. We know natural selection does this through trial and error over multiple generations, but Denis seems to think there's a more direct way.
Bruce Lipton proved experimentally many years ago that the cells react intelligently to the environment and turn the appropriate genes on and off in order to adapt the organism to it. In other words, intelligence controls adaptation rather than random mutations and selection, which makes it much faster. Observations in nature seems to support this idea - google "Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island" for an example.
I’m not qualified to have an opinion on who’s right and wrong in this debate, but I don’t find Dennis Noble trustworthy. I get a strong feeling that his arguments are beside the point.
"Feelings" is not a valid argument.
You will have to do with better reasoning.
The configuration of matter (atoms) does not make matter conscious. So there is no gene that produces consciousness. Unselfishness is meaningless without consciousness. Given consciousness there may be a gene that makes unselfishness desirable. But, since consciousness is needed for unselfishness to exist, genetics is not the ultimate cause of unselfishness.
I like watching stuff like this but I just don't have a clue what they're talking about..😂
Genes suppressed by methylation can be useful later but have no effect on offspring.
bruh read a book
We are the eternal witness. Reality is a mental construct shared by many conscious observers. On my channel, I explain why metaphysical idealism should be the default position-not materialism, as such a view suffers from the hard problem of consciousness, which is an impasse, and physicalist metaphysics itself violates Occam's razor.
They both sound like a comedy sketch from John Bird! Remember the ones he did in the 80s and 90
Does anyone know who's (more) correct? I'm not worthy. tavi.
I'm sure someone does, but I don't. But off the cuff, I'd side more with Mr. D on this one.
They both can be wrong. I see no confidence. 😅 just throwing ideas and elaborating.
From the video provided, it is genuinely impossible to derive what Noble is disagreeing on. Contextually, it seems like it implies that he's saying the genes are not "selfish" but within this video he doesn't say anything that connects to, or has baring on, what Dawkins means by the word selfish.
It's a really odd clip tbh because I watched the whole thing waiting for the reveal and there's just nothing here. It's very odd.
@@StephenRichmond89 So it's not just me. Good. tavi.
@@StephenRichmond89 Yeah, I mean, I'm no expert on this topic, but this Noble guy (which I'd never heard of before) seemed to be going off on a tangent that didn't really have much to do with at least what I understand about Richard's basic argument.
Struggle different damage the person who doesn't follow up as orders we Gain good Ego's stand up respect je May hardship they' provide we takes challenge more je
Denis Noble does an excellent job of imitating Paul Whitehouse. Great debate btw.
Come on that's Paul
Whitehouse.
😂
It would seem that Olivander knows a few things about biology too.
Wow
Don't own a credit card, can't watch it.
Cool hair style
''iai''. That almost sounds like ''I : Robot''.
For such an intelligent man, Richard Dawkins is incredibly closed off to intelligent thought...other than his own..
Denis is right on point.
Elaborate.
Sorry but my brain and bio-chemistry was so overwhelmed by the absolute manifestation of quantum wave beauty of that woman in the middle who said nothing such that I must watch this video again but I think I agree mostly with Denis Noble on this.
whos the host/moderator? asking for a friend..
Bruh 🤣
I wish somebody as graceful as denis explains nonduality to richard
It's the Processing of information of the Brain and other cells within even the Heart that alters the information.
What Dawkins is missing is that, at the species level, success owes more to cooperation than competition- as well as to its cellular antecedent, symbiogenesis.
My cats name is mittens
Yes, maybe some survive dormant. In any case if a gene is switched on, then the mechanism is more flexible than selfish. Maybe selfish is rather an unfortunately chosen word and not neutral. What is good in one circumstance may not be good in another. Both survival of the fittest and selfish have a too narrow vision as it is like a veil covering the other half of necessary important aspects. Much better is the observation that doing what is best for a given circumstance. That way stability is provided, while maintaining flexibility. It looks like the invested interest is in the word selfish so much so that it becomes inflexible dogmatic. Genes can do without such naming and choose any path they like. It might also be, that genes replicate because they are chosen. In being chosen is no selfishness rather being useful to many. If genes can get stolen by bacteria, then this could mean that environments can be made friendly supportive. You can wipe out bacteria with antibiotics or be supportive of the colonies that help control the bad ones. A much more holistic way of looking at things. Things can coexist. Telling a broader view is much more likely be near the truth and reality.
Well genetic mutations are random and what we observe in organisms through natural selection is determined what works or doesn't on macro level! Tho some new study found plant can protect specific genes intentionally, not merely random mutations! But question is since even randomness can cause soft-determinism. Why and how does that plant do it?
Survival of 'the most pathetic' is preserved by either the unselfish gene or selfish gene, if an animal can make itself pathetic, another animal may look after it to save it fending for itself, like cute animals and toy dog breeds.
I agree with your take on the selfish aspect, i mean there has to be examples of tonic and toxic selfishness as well as tonic and toxic unselfish generosity in society.
That's good insight, but I find that your argument doesn't really disqualify the usefulness of the term 'selfish', if you take it to mean 'whatever the gene needs to do in order to survive & replicate' (and whether or not it is good or bad for others & whatever support system it needs in order to thrive). I actually thought the term (selfish) was rather well-chosen in the scope of reaching the 'average reader', if you will.
@@gofai274 yes, so many still clinging onto debunked words,
We know everything that mutates dies very quickly
Evolution is an order, like ordering monkeys all over the planet to move thier tails to the front of the cortex
OR all life shrink or grow by X%
Its the same as an app on your phone, the Mother sends out an electromagnetic message to the Thalamus , which then rewrites the baby code in other Mothers
Everything most people talk about is so out of focus , they actually believe they only have sound ears
How do they achieve that totally black background?
apollo 16...
The darkest paint in the world.
might be black 2.0 paint
Gene editing.
I thought it was George Martin and he was going to start talking about the The Beatles🙁
There are two much more interesting questions: 1) are we, am I, selfish? And, 2) what does "self" really mean?
Be still a bit. 🙏🕊️❤
Based on Dawkins views, Aquaman and his Attlantic people are possible because of evolution.
A great discussion between two intelligent men, and in the company of a gorgous woman. I must be in heaven.
And even the woman herself is quite intelligent!
@@mikefoster5277 I don't know her, so I'll take your word for it 😊
1:27 - wonderful if we could recreate a Richard Dawkins as well !
How about combining both DN’s & RD’s genomes to create a lovechild of intellectual proportions 😂
Preferably one that doesn’t age either.
what a minds!
I fully understand you, Richard... no you don't, you keep going back to how is happens, Richard kept telling you that was irrelevant in relation to the concept of the selfish gene, and he's right.
Why am I watching this????
A better question than whether a gene is selfish or not. Granted, the latter question is good enough. And the answer is simple enough, too. A gene has no self, and as such can't be selfish. It simply exists and, sometimes, is duplicated.
By the way, this video was recommended to me, naturally, as I love biology almost as much as philosophy. But, having read the book "Selfish Gene" more than a couple of decades ago, I had already realized that the catchy title was just that. An early click-bait, so to speak. It was a subtle and possibly unconscious attempt to justify and absolve the selfish behavior we also see within and around us. But, I am yet to watch this video. I don't think I need to watch it. Do I? Be still a bit and peace, my friends.
The question & focus are wrong. If genome replication in the future of anyone is to be done it should only take place with certain consent. If not, that person should be left alone. I'd say punishable by law. I don't want my genome to be replicated. If someone considers to decide to know better & make decision on my behalf? No, completely and absolutely unacceptable.
When your genome was first replicated when your parents conceived you nobody asked your consent and yet here you are. Maybe your future replica will be glad they get to exist as well!
"My genome"? You don't own your genome. You can't - Think of the consequences for identical twins.
@@N.i.c.k.H It is most definitely mine. I own it. It's not my problem if you live in an uncivilised & barbaric country.
From life's origin the polymer that replicated by a templatimg mechanism kept evolving along with the biochemistry around it . The great importance of the archive has evolved into being and now permits speciation and stem cell specialisation and was not always so since at life's origin the archive's function was the bulk synthesis of catalysts and, being selfish, to replicate itself via a template.
A new book to be published this year by Austin Macauley Publishers titled From Chemistry to Life on Earth spells it all out .
Noble's quoting of experiments that he was involved in as the solution and winning argument is a cardinal sin, a much broader reference needs to be quoted. Hormonal or chemical signals to the nucleus usually make their mark by affecting transcription factors that work on promoter regions of the gene. This is only one of more than 30 epigenetic modulations of gene expression.
that is a great point, not a lot of popular science on biology focuses enough on the evolution of the process of evolution itself, and the fact that the period between the very first prokaryotes and the first eukaryotes was almost as long as the period between the first eukaryotes and human beings. So about 2 billion years from a protocell to develop a nucleus and become a true cell, and another 2 billion or so to go from the earliest single cells to multicellular complex life that recognizes and understands it is made of cells, creates the internet, and discusses said evolution of cells in internet comments. We've come a long ways, folks!
Try just finding diseases and thier markers could these be mapped
There is such a thing as being too patient and respectful when listening to tommyrot.
Yes. Maybe because Noble was Dawkins’ teacher?
Yup, And Richard displayed that in abundance! :)
Have to appreciate pixel fold's outer screen even more now
You learn to care for others or you don't during your childhood... there is no such thing as unselfish gene. It's just a learned behavior. If you don't have it, you are bound to use people and society should find a way to filter you out. Not governments, but people should be able to discern who you are and have systematic answers: "go there to learn this phenomenon and acknowledge that you're socially impaired" -___-
Usually, they are the perpetrators of bad deeds and are not cognizant of the pain they inflict. They can See it and affiliate it, but they wont be in any hurt themselves.
I thought he was animatronic at first.
This important lesson for laymen: do not take one view for granted; wait and listen to the other expert. You may not understand the topic fully, but you will realize that this is an ongoing debate and the lab will be the final judge.
Is Richard Dawkins a biologist or not
He's more a propagandist than a biologist. The one thing he did get right is his stance on transgenderism.
Cricket
Yes, Richard is a biologist, his academic qualifications are all in that subject, as is his subsequent scientific work.
What made you ask?