Leucine is bad for your mitochondria??????

Nice

Evolution? You say? From chemistry into biology? Nope. You cannot do that never. Before doing that try to revive first a dead cell. Start with that because all of the ingredients are already in there. I suggest try to revive a dead cell first.

NOTHING *HAS* TO DRIVE IT!! It is accidental, absolutely random mutations in position and value in the genome in each offspring, and circumstantial, Natural Selection is merely whether some genome is more fit for its environmental niche, and THAT is pure happenstance!! It DOES select for ever more and more complexly adapted life forms, and that makes it SEEM guided, but IT ISN'T!!!

1:29:39 ahhhh! Yes! I've discovered that my DNA isn't simply "manipulating" me! IT'S LITERALLY KEEPING ME ALIVE! IN VERY REAL WAYS! 👀👀👀

This is amazingly rich info source thank you!

hahahahahaha! Evolution is a disproven myth.

All carbs are bad too

BCAA don’t raise your insulin levels.

Make perfect copy is impossible because such copy has to occupied the same space and time. DNA information and cellular one might be seen as one entity. DNA as blueprint and cellular as interactions with environmental. Or I'm completely didn't get. However, good to think while listening wiser people.

As Adam below said - Mike was just the same during his lectures. Always going off on tangents and then getting back on track. He's a great Bob Dylan fan "The carpet too is moving under you" = plate tectonics. He's also a great Charlie Parker fan. One day me and some mates were playing some Charlie Parker in the 4th year room and he came in because he heard it and hung around for about half an hour listening to it with us. Another mate of mine made his day once by saying: "he's a great goalie"! We were privileged.

A new book published by Austin Macauley Publishers titled From Chemistry to Life on Earth outlines abiogenesis in great detail with a solution to the evolution of the genetic code and the ribosome as well as the cell in general using 290 references, 50 illustrations and several information tables with a proposed molecular natural selection formula with a worked example for ATP.

We only have corn fed animals. What should I do?

I am an ardent fan of Desmond Morris. Happen to get this video. Desmond in his old age is just as inspiring and as informative. Long live.

Thank you Jitender for just letting Prof Noble talk without interruptions.

Thanks!

I strongly suggest for Danis to investigate why beaver 🦫 build dam and how birds 🦅 build nest both not trained so?

Wow, that's kind of laughable bc apparently grass fed beef is higher in amino acids than grain fed 😅 You'd be much better off learning more in depth from Dr Bikman re insulin at least

Combining fat protein and carbs is the highest you can raise your insulin especially in large amounts thanks to Dr Bikmans teaching Protein and fat don't really elevate insulin much at all Glucose raises insulin more than fructose I believe, And it's pretty clear Dr lustig is not really 100% on low-carb because he fails to point out that glycemic index glycemic load is one of the biggest factors in combination like a giant bowl of rice is much worse than drinking a beer or something

Leucine is in grass fed beef as well as grain fed and is the most anabolic amino acid, more capable of building muscle than anything else, which contributes massively to insulin sensitivity and to life expectancy later in life where we know keeping muscle mass is highly related to longevity Valine and isoleucine are also in grass fed beef, and no protein isn't the problem with regards to insulin levels, protein is tied to muscle mass and thusly life extension, and as we age ee need more and more protein to combat anabolic resistance in fact

Info and a designed Cell of many parts . Hmmmm . Sounds very un random to me ...

Very Intresting n true

Thomas Maria Anderson Donald Johnson Paul

Garcia Michael Martinez Kenneth Thomas Linda

Hernandez Helen Gonzalez Deborah Anderson Elizabeth

i synopsize this as the inescapability of perceiving *agency* in evolution - the peculiar thing is the always fugitive identity of this agency. But even that agency which one habitually regards as one's own (and provides us with our idea of agency) can be seen (if one is very attentive) hardly to be one's own

Harris Jason Jackson Paul Davis Barbara

Thanks to both educated people, it is very difficult to understand science, especially molecular biology, moving forward to a bright and proud future from the precious scientist Dennis Nobel.

Martin Michelle Anderson John Gonzalez Jason

Hernandez George Lee Scott Jones Matthew

Garcia William Martin David Johnson Christopher

Anderson Michelle Thomas Brenda Robinson Brenda

Lee David Thompson Jose Martinez John

Lopez Frank Garcia Shirley Hernandez Brenda

Bottom up wins in every area of real world understanding and know-how

Bottom up wins in every area of real world understanding and know-how

We use bottom up approaches in every area of effective science and medicine and engineering and basically every area of real world knowledge is bottom up! Just because we don't apply quantum mechanics to every physical endeavor doesn't mean that bottom up isn't the correct understanding of reality! No to understand what to have for breakfast or how traffic works you don't use quantum mechanics but yet you do use the same principles of looking at how smaller ingredients create the bigger picture I mean you don't have to live this way but it is the only way that has proven effective for actual real-world understanding and application

Were you going to say shit or shish kabab?😮

Is he suggesting to not eat meat that is fed corn? Where do people buy the meat that is not corn fed?

Answer?

Stopped all alcohol many many years ago.

I’ve learned so much from Dr Lustig. Ty again Sir.

Great interview 👍👍

Bless you

I think Darwin's original "warm pond" idea is simple and sweet. Modern biologists overthink the origin of life. Keep it simple.

If you just leave rocks, heat, gravity and chemicals alone long enough it will cause interview apparently. Hard to believe this is still considered science when it takes this much faith to hold together.

It's becoming clear that with all the brain and consciousness theories out there, the proof will be in the pudding. By this I mean, can any particular theory be used to create a human adult level conscious machine. My bet is on the late Gerald Edelman's Extended Theory of Neuronal Group Selection. The lead group in robotics based on this theory is the Neurorobotics Lab at UC at Irvine. Dr. Edelman distinguished between primary consciousness, which came first in evolution, and that humans share with other conscious animals, and higher order consciousness, which came to only humans with the acquisition of language. A machine with only primary consciousness will probably have to come first. What I find special about the TNGS is the Darwin series of automata created at the Neurosciences Institute by Dr. Edelman and his colleagues in the 1990's and 2000's. These machines perform in the real world, not in a restricted simulated world, and display convincing physical behavior indicative of higher psychological functions necessary for consciousness, such as perceptual categorization, memory, and learning. They are based on realistic models of the parts of the biological brain that the theory claims subserve these functions. The extended TNGS allows for the emergence of consciousness based only on further evolutionary development of the brain areas responsible for these functions, in a parsimonious way. No other research I've encountered is anywhere near as convincing. I post because on almost every video and article about the brain and consciousness that I encounter, the attitude seems to be that we still know next to nothing about how the brain and consciousness work; that there's lots of data but no unifying theory. I believe the extended TNGS is that theory. My motivation is to keep that theory in front of the public. And obviously, I consider it the route to a truly conscious machine, primary and higher-order. My advice to people who want to create a conscious machine is to seriously ground themselves in the extended TNGS and the Darwin automata first, and proceed from there, by applying to Jeff Krichmar's lab at UC Irvine, possibly. Dr. Edelman's roadmap to a conscious machine is at arxiv.org/abs/2105.10461

(@1:38:00) If we do manage to gestate a new individual from Dr. Noble's embryonic (from both parents) DNA this would be what identical (monozygotic) twins, triplets etc. are. We know that even identical twins are not the same individual and it isn't because of their different life experiences. So why would this new individual be Dr. Noble? Further, to test this, why just one new instance, instead gestate 10 of his embryos successfully and ask which one, or would any be Dr. Noble? None would be Dr. Noble. Not because they haven't lived Dr. Noble's life experiences but even before birth none would be Dr. Noble. These individuals would be Dr. Noble's 'twins' or clones no different from if his mother had gestated all 10 identical offspring at once. This tells us that DNA and form do not define individuality. Individuality is an individualized state temporarily (for a lifetime) maintained by a viable form interacting with some property (not electromagnetism) of the space that the living form instantaneously occupies. This is not so strange a concept, your smartphone is functioning similarly by interacting with the electromagnetic spectrum of the space that the smartphone instantaneously occupies because all matter is perpetually moving through space. The breakthrough lies in describing this individualizing degree of freedom of space that naturally instantiates individuality in any viable form and in any viable habitat in this universe. This elucidates the Universal Mobility of Individuality (UMI) principle which proposes that individuality is form and location-agnostic in this universe. Read and keep reading; {OnlinePhilosophyClub, Forum Index, Argumentative Philosophy Forums, Philosophy of Science; What is a living individual and is it naturally universally mobile?}

The idea that membranes are derived directly from the previous membrane and not at all from dna is amazing!

Anyone who might be tempted by this misguided nonsense, I invite you to actually read Dawkins' The Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype. Or the recent The Gene's-Eye View of Evolution by J. Arvid Ågren. Daniel Dennett's '90s book Darwin's Dangerous Idea should also do it, as will David Haig's recent Darwin to Derrida. Biologists like Mr Noble don't fully grasp the position they criticise. I studied Zoology. If you think I'm wrong (along with the authors I mentioned) or just another Dawkins fanboy, try me. 👇