This is a great thought experiment to add contour (lol) to what is an incredibly simplified view of genetics (sorry Mendel isnt enough). But the degrees of freedom required to make a unique human (like me vs you) would completely blow up from the 3 dimensional view, not to mention the subjective characteristics we put to things. I’m sorry but being a dog owner ‘because of your genes’ is total bullshit and a heinous interpretation of genetics and is borderline pseudoscience. How do we ever become good science communicators if we fall into this whimsical bullshit. Liking dogs and having money to own one ( for example ) sure is somewhat influenced by genes in an incredibly general sense, but it is literally nowhere near the direct influence social and cultural aspects (which are abstract concepts moving around fixed biological points) have on your decisions. Sorry but this is just wank, this is what happens when you ask questions that aren’t based in previous observations.

Smells like Theology masquerading as philosophy.

The body is made of atoms dear chap; barely 1% matter. Mind isn’t.

Machine seems a perfectly useful label. Words cannot replicate reality. Even the colour Red is a commonly agreed label on a vast array of phenomena.

Mind creates models from interpretations of perceptions of projections.

first of all write sentence is:protein is not like man made machine .and second is there any simple form of cell with very simple self generation system ? the problem is evolutionists did not prov any thing even had not any supporting evidence first then they search for compatible evidence . this is very questionable way

Fall in love with the process for the process is you ~me 😂

just like most science simplification, it is not really a lie. it necessary for leaning but as you have and require more sophistications the model has become more complicate

What do you say about Denis noble and his work??

On the Y chromosome discussion, it has to be admitted that it above all else determines sex and anomalies are extremely rare. If it were like eye color, if that indeed as multifactorial as stated, we would see a much higher percentage of ambiguous sexes.

The majority of outcomes proved you are wrong. The exception does not change the rule. Live long and prosper.

It is undeniable that genetic plays a role in human behavior, there is a link but its like you said its not direct , multi variable complex. Income, through the tangled web of complexity, is undeniably influenced by genetics. Maybe in a super small way. But the way you develop, react to stimuli, and the person you become is all influenced by genes and realizing this doesn't mean we will be eugenics fanatics. Mendel's work is still massively informative and a critical step in our long journey of understanding genetics. It's a great educational aid when it is understood well, and thanks to your excellent work many of us will understand this with greater clarity.

Thank you very much for clarifying and expounding upon the limited public school education that I have. I am now ready to get that raise at work.

I was having a conversation with two people, who kept spouting the whole “I’m glad schools are banning pronouns, transgender stuff is too complicated for them” while me and my partner tried explaining that “no, children will understand it more- their brains are literally hardwired to pick up as much information as possible”. Like the reason why I’m way better at understanding and fitting within LGBTQ is because in elementary school my best friend told me she was into other girls, and in middleschool my other best friend told me she was a girl despite being born as male. They will understand this the earlier you teach them. So teach them the actual science, make it fun (because that’s the best way to learn) and you’ll be good.

I disagree, think that you made some mistakes on the beguinning... but its ok

I would argue this is going a bit too far and entropy and quantum theory explain some of the concepts you're describing. I don't think having too many variables to calculate means physics can't explain it. Where I agree is that scientists usually think we know way more than we actually do and needlessly reduce complex systems into their respective field. Still, I subscribed recently and would like to see more in the future.

Umm, this is a lie, they didn't actually decipher DNA. Also, genes due depict traits, this is a proven fact. The OCA2 gene is directly linked to blue eyes etc. What they can't do is decode the massive amounts of data they refer to as junk DNA. Don't believe this guy.

Metaphors are used for a reason....

No need to denounce Mendel. We just need to be told he purified his gene lines. and his theory does apply to ABO blood types, and the RH negative trait, right? Great video, I shared it. Thanks for all you do and share with us!!!

Garbage

So.. they are "compliant mechanism machines"

I think I love this channel. Obviously (now that I've watched this video) we're attracted to the world we see, hear and know. And that's the one we believe in. But there's more to a pale blue dot than you'd know from a distant fly-by on the way back to Andromeda Z-89/&~55.

"We are whatever we choose to do with our lives . . . " A beautiful truth. Coincidentally, I've been trying to tell myself that for a number of whiles now, to no great effect. But then, what most consterns the thoughty encephalon? Not enough Zinfandel, or hosts who don't know how to pour with a heavy hand.

I don't expect to be listening to something random while cooking and hear a Yogi Jaeger mention. 😂

If they could no even get the color of the eyes mechanism right is it no wonder they subscribe to the Quackery of Evolution? LOL

13:43 The practice of eugenics does not seem to me to be unviable under a more modern model of phenotype expression. If anything it stands to gain from a more accurate probabillistic model of how genes influence what offspring might be like, utilizing modern bioinformatics techniques. It surely becomes quite a bit more difficult to define what phenotype to aim for with the needed rigor and respect to the prospected environmental factors, since the desired traits need to be balanced against each other and the cost of providing certain environments beneficial to meeting goals, but pareto problems aren't impossible to find acceptable solutions for.

If anything biology is simplified nanotechnology, simplified to many faults Relatively to complex/advanced nanobots of course Advanced nanobots wouldn't suffer and eventually die even when healthy, nor be evil and create stupid humans Or perhaps chaotic would be a better way to think, cause chaos will always die just to return again

There would still be ridiculous headlines like: 》Scientists find 24 "golden genes" that guiderope you to prosperity《 Which expresses in probabillistic term the same ridiculous statement as expressed with deterministic vocabulary before.

Who would believe the oversimplified unnuanced crap we get taught through school and media? Those mediums are for the uninterested masses that doesn't want to acquire knowledge about a topic to get closer to the truth, but want to *feel* and *look* to others like they are smarter, but they can't wait to get over and done with a topic and throw it on the steaming pile that is thier worldview without further inquiry! That's why thier pile reeks of propaganda. Yes, I'm angry about the system and shake my fist towards the sky in youtube comments.

I think it's all about quantifiability and quality, QUANTIFIABILITY goes into the depths and gives us precision where as QUALITY explores different possibilities gives us accuracy. Now in nature as a whole consist of both but there is a hierarchy of their relative abundance among subjects. Quantifiability being the highest in the lowest level of subject i.e. Mathematics and quality being the highest in the highest level of subject that is social science. NOW BIOLOGY being in the middle its hard to balance both the perspectives. I GUESS..... 🤔

Wow!! Thank you for this video 😮!!! I’ve learned so much.. thank you 😊

You are tearing down much more than you build. All science is built on incomplete information and the molecular machine metaphor and metabolic and signaling pathway maps are about as good as they get to explain the biology of a cell. No doubt that induced fit and repurposing of structure for different function is a built-in feature of biological systems. In the two videos I watched (the other one is you have been lied to about genetics), you criticize a lot, but do not offer a single alternative view except that it is more complex than we thought.

I really appreciate the clarity and nuance of this video, it really conveys a more accurate understanding of how dynamic and complex cells truly are. That said, I feel like this deeper understanding of the cell’s dynamic components should qualify, rather than negate, the fact that a cell’s protein components have/are parts (1), which are solid (2) and specific (3). Namely, it should qualify them in the following ways: a cell’s protein components are not fixed parts in a single mechanism or process, but are part of many different mechanisms/processes (1*); these proteins are not rigid (whether rigidity equates to solidity is possibly a moot point), but flexible and dynamic, adopting many different (and often useful) conformations (2*); these proteins are often not monofunctional, but polyfunctional, playing a role in a huge variety of processes. My fear is that negating, rather than qualifying that a cell has solid, specific parts (like machines) may cause someone to think that cells are less amazing, intricate, or worthy of wonder than artificial machines, when actually the opposite is true. (I believe the opposite is true because, to me, the co-option of proteins into many processes, their dynamic nature, and polyfunctionality makes them more worthy of wonder than artificial machines with less dynamic and integrated parts). Furthermore, having observed motor proteins (like dynein) in action using fluorescence microscopy, I would also say that, at least for a significant portion of proteins, there would still be relevant and helpful analogies which could be drawn between them and artificial machines. In summary, I would argue that a cell’s components are, in the main, unlike artificial machines, not because they are less amazing, but rather more amazing than such machines. I understand, however, that you probably believe the same thing, and so again I am very grateful for you sharing this information and getting it out there, as it is extremely helpful and interesting.

Awesome job conveying the subtleties involved!. High time this was main stream. And I couldn't agree more with your take on teaching kids the real story from the beginning. Subscribed!

I actually don't see the same thing. I see the DNA as an extremely complex blueprint that creates you. Over and over and over again. And it is very complicated but all of the kinesens go to the DNA and to different spots to pick out a little pieces that need repairing so I'm not sure what you're thinking of or why you made this video. Perhaps you just haven't kept up to date

6 min in. I hope you get to the point where we start talking about what genes actually are, and how we misunderstand the situation if we think complex phenotypes are the result of a single factor (one gene). But you stick with this Waddington model. It's not a math problem. The gene encodes a protein. If that protein is expressed, we see its effect in the cell/tissue where it is expressed. Melanin getting made in the iris will turn that blue eye brown. If you don't have the gene for the protein to trigger this, you get blue eyes. Mendel's model works to explain this. Add in scenarios in which only a small amount of melanin is produced (green eyes), or various other factors come into play (purple, hazel, yellow, even red eyes), then you simply need a model that includes more than one factor working as a network or module. That module isn't random. It's not a probability. It is simply the workings of physiological pathways based on the expression of multiple proteins. We can still understand it. The complex network of factors involved in eye color are mostly known. The network for skin color is more complex. There are two types of melanin. There are variants in their expression. We don't know all of the genes at play in the network yet. Ultimately, DNA is not a "blueprint." It's a tool chest with an instruction manual for how and when to use the tools. Yes, environmental factors affect whether the tools can be made and when. But you can't boil it down to a probability like Waddington's "Plinko" board attempts to do. That's a totally wrong understanding. Like a lot of mathematical models, they're oversimplifications based off of assumptions that ultimately turn out to be wrong. No matter how accurately you do the calculation, if you plug garbage assumptions into a garbage formula, you''ll get a garbage result. GIGO. Let's not throw out a useful learning tool and replace it with GIGO, just so you can skip Intro to Biochemistry.

This video is EXTREMELY misleading for anyone trying to understand evolution or ethics at any level. I urge everyone to unsuscribe, as this channel is promoting a seriously problematic thought framework that is as vulnerable to ideological manipulation as SubAnima says Dawkins work is. So, first off: no, I'm not a Dawkins lover by -any- extent. There are many possible and legit critiques at how he does science, and especially, how he talks about it. But here, SubAnima is directly trying to erase scientific knowledge (as kin-selection has been quite proved so far), just because "it's politically problematic", based on the assumption that "politics and science are inseparable". This last phrase has been debunked literally tons of times, and only a very narrow and specific way of sciencing can apply that view (especially, those scientific methods lying on the upper ontological levels), such as sociology. Yes, SubAnima: it's perfectly possible to separate politics and science, although it'll be easier in some sciences than others. But we should never try to manipulate or literally try to remove scientific facts or data that contradict our ethics. We know (or at least, should know) that our ethics are a construct without any fundamental basis - and there's literally NOTHING wrong with that. The is-ought fallacy is something we could perfectly educate on, and politically operate from that framework, even if "the human mind can't viscerally do that separation". Wait, did you just... justify a morally doubtful prescription (letting science be manipulated by ideology) based on... a biological feature?! You are literally doing *the same* that you're criticising. And in this case, it's funny because you don't even provide any real world data on how much people tend to fall into naturalistic fallacies; just cited a random female philosopher as an argument of authority and provided no data on how common that is, nor provided any argument for why it would be "so difficult to fence off scientific discourse regarding these issues". This video is extremely problematic for those reasons, but many others could be pointed out. I sincerely hope SubAnima does a correction video, not to legitimize Dawkins of anything, but at least to recognize the serious epistemological consequences of this way of thinking, and understand that we indeed can operate in science following an ethical framework that doesn't fall into these problems. edit: by the way, if someone is racist, homophobic, male supremacist, etc... they're literally never made that way because of science, but their family, friends or experiences. If someone already has that belief, they will keep legitimizing it with any data they find, using science when it's at "their side", and ignoring it when it's not. Just the same as many posmoderns instrumentalize the science they want, while ignoring an immense chunk of it.

the big bang theory 🤓

Letter to Peerson 😂 10:15

What do you think about Rupert Sheldrake's morphic fields?

If someone says they don't believe in mechanicism anymore, people will assume that they don't believe in biological determinism anymore too.

It’s a Quantum universe. Endless probabilities. Remember, there’s no such thing as a straight line. That’s just a mental construct.

Awesome video! Although, I don't see how oversimplified models (special cases/purified lineages/idealized scenarios) are synonymous with determinism and therefore the need to discount determinism. Punnett squares are limited to two dimensions, but matrices, more generally (and tensors, etc.), can hold theoretically limitless interacting factors. If only Mendel had the Sacrament of Linear Algebra upon his mantle, lol. I can see _the illusion_ of randomness appearing within that complex math, perhaps as nodes or null zones of sorts. Maybe I don't understand determinism quite the way you mean it.

Interesting scientific perspective. Interesting just how far we have to go to justify and rationalize our positions. Yep, I'll be that conservative A-Hole. This presentation is going as far as to debate the very definition of life and of organisms to justify killing babies in the womb. It's the same mindset and worldview that will go into the weeds about what is biological sex to justify gender transition and the affirmation of the trans community. If anyone ever winners why there's so much anti-intellectualism in the world, look no further than these types of end-products of so many intellectual endeavors. It's why the public has lost so much faith in not just intellectuals, but intellectual institutions.

We weren't lied to, you made improper inferences from the information you were provided. This is unwatchable.

Thanks.

Lol the analogy at 18:10 is actually false; at least here were i work we coose the pin heights after the ridges in the key 😂

OMG... Leonard IRL? Sorry, this is my first video and I just had to say it...

The one thing that we need to realise is that *All Models Are Wrong* And that's okay, a model doesn't need to be 100% accurate and become overcomplicated to the point that it basically is the same thing as the thing that it's trying to model. But what matters is how USEFUL a model is at explaining and applying a concept. A protein capable of doing multiple separate tasks is an important thing to recognise, but depending on that research you do, it may not be relevant. C0nC0rdance goes more into the shortcomings of models and why they don't need to be perfect.

Dna is a blueprint this is dumb.😔😠