Biology beyond the genome | Denis Noble

Denis Noble discusses common misconceptions in genetics.
Are our genes really as deterministic as we think they are?
Watch the full talk] at iai.tv/video/biology-beyond-g...
We tend to think that genes make us who we are. But what if this is the wrong way around? Rather than bottom-up, might nature work top-down? Join biologist, Denis Noble, to explore how organisms create their own destiny using genes.
#evolution #genetics #genomesequencing
One of the pioneers of systems biology, Denis Noble is a Professor Emeritus at the University of Oxford. Renowned for challenging convention, Noble explores the interplay between an organism and its genes.
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

[@resilientfarmsanddesignstu1702]

Denise Nobel is a true scientist. He is a joy to listen to and he is really a National treasure. Really his only purpose for doing this is to ensure that rational, logical, objective analysis of the data, and the conclusions that can be drawn from it, remains the focus of scientific inquiry, and that all humans reap the benefits of such knowledge so as to increase their understanding of the world that they live in and make better decisions as a species in their lives, their society and their public policies.

[@advaitrahasya]

Get this guy together with Michael Levin. Very complementary understandings. :)

[@davidkelley1555]

I followed the link to see the rest of the lecture but got waylaid in a web site. Perhaps they could make the trail more discernable.

[@oltadalliu2736]

The year 1980 is a specific and Mystic year for promoting the study of the hole ADN and especially for Genoms. Thank you.

[@kadim6578]

Thank you for sharing with us this interesting video..!!

[@vinm300]

Very interesting Worth watching twice (tomorrow lunch)

[@suyogtaday9674]

Sir Thanks for very valuable knowledge 🌹

[@michaeltrower741]

Wow! This was fabulous!

[@bienen-dialoge5769]

Great, thank you for the great talk

[@Spiegelradtransformation]

Thank you I am very interested on.

[@dr.satishsharma1362]

Excellent....❤ thanks 🙏

[@TeslaElonSpaceXFan]

Thank you! ❤

[@danarashid2569]

Of course epigenetics plays a role in our biology. I doubt there's any reasonable scientist who disputes that. However, the way that proteins and nucleic acids respond to their environments is still encoded in the DNA. DNA can be changed or introduced, as by viral transmission or random mutation, which can result in a change in the genome for a certain cell. Not all our cells in our own bodies have the same exact genome due to these sorts of changes. Ultimately, though, those cellular genomes dictate a cell's response to its environment.

[@benk79]

Your angry response suggests a sacred cow is being challenged. I think you should be open to the possibility that it is not only random mutation that can change the genome. There may well be a mechanism for the living organism to change its genome. That would be an exciting progression in generics (and also explain why there has not been the medicinal gains expected in the last 30 years from simply reading the genome).

[@danarashid2569]

@@benk79 I think you need to re-read my comment. No anger here, and certainly no closed-mindedness, especially when it comes to ways the genome can be altered. I'll add that I'm an evolutionary biologist.

[@benk79]

@danarashid2569 Great, sounds like we're on the same page then. I suspect there has been an over-focus on a pure reductionist approach in biology and stepping back somewhat to look at the full picture certainly can't hurt.

[@ScienceNerd1.1]

@@benk79 I don‘t know what you mean by „Changes by reading the genome“ but I assume you mean why biologists are unable to just identify which protein is coded by which gene sequence. I also used to ask my self the same question when I was younger because we humans produce about 100 000 different gene products but we only have 25 000 genes which kinda seems confusing at first. The answer is RNA processing in which a predecessor version of RNA gets either Edited, spliced, capped or polyadenylated, this basically gives one gene the possibility to create various amounts of different amino acid sequences and therefore different enzymes/ gene products. You can then imagine how difficult it is to comprehend what enzyme is coded by a certain gene, and it’s even worse if we consider the fact that a lot of enzymes/ proteins influence the transcription and translation of other enzymes. So we need lots of time, money and patience in order to understand this whole entanglement of chain reactions and to understand which genes produce certain gene products.

[@mznxbcv12345]

he never said anything about epigenetics, he said exosomes, something entirely different.

[@sentientflower7891]

Are we going to get the entire lecture?

[@linkytunes2133]

Interesting.

[@NicholasWilliams-kd3eb]

A switch (protein binding to confirmation site) is a (if) statement, but it's also a "switch" statement (case1, case2, case3....) for molecules that bind to that confirmation site, with differential effect. if that's what you mean.

[@ericjohnson6665]

"Case" statements are nested "if"s.

[@NicholasWilliams-kd3eb]

@@ericjohnson6665 That's right. Biochemicals also have this gradient of different switch modes which is interesting (the switch conditions change), which can be characterized by what it interacts with (changing confirmation [spatial structural thresholds]), through the charge balance gradient, and the temperature gradient.

[@mudfossiluniversity]

I study Genomics (went to Johns Hopkins for it) and I also study the history of Biology from the Triassic to now and it is not understood by biologists. ONLY BIOLOGICAL CHEMICALS ARE CREATED BY ENZYMES. Only Bacteria create enzymes. CTAG are simply program codes...Even if the Gene is good they need to be methylated to turn on. I would love to discuss this because Drs do not realize the importance of Good Bacteria affect on the Cell TIGHT JUNCTIONS....all diseases are invasion and the membranes are the barrier. We have had success with Autism simply from Pro-bacteria and membrane supplements.

[@mudfossiluniversity]

All transmission of genetic code is done by Ribosomes inserting code into DNA using MRNA which are exactly like virus and some hurt and others create immunity. ONLY BACTERIA CREATE RIBOSOMES.....which can be inhaled and take up residence if the cellular junctions allow entry. Look up Tight Junctions.

[@gregoriusmike]

Curious as to what bacteria and membrane supplements were used.

[@ewthmatth]

"good bacteria..... tight junctions" Are you talking about specifically in the digestive system or other parts of the body. Sorry if that's a dumb question.

[@Nah_Bohdi]

​​@@ewthmatth He is talking about cells, Molecular Biology, all animals.

[@sajadADar]

Good morning sir dear sir please can you provide me good meterial to study evolution clearly

[@AVADAMS1967]

Wow - "Just because you get a Nobel Prize, doesn't mean people will listen to you." I wish this guy was in my family!

[@abietester9037]

People in the background, quiet please. Respect the speaker!

[@ghostbroly]

Really annoying to hear a phone ring disturbing a speech that fascinating.

[@Owl350]

Hi i'm Patrick Allen Andrews It was my evolution theory.Presented in 95 that turned out to be correct according to the science of DNA.

[@mithileshkumar352]

Is this article available in Hindi language??

[@user-yi8gs2bd4r]

Loooove how he said three

[@punkkauz]

I used to think that the chances are very few for gamete to have mutuation and create phenomenal useful mutuation. May be like the speaker claims, there could be communication between gamete genome and body. Can anyone suggest some PAPERS THAT PROVE THAT.

[@ckyn3t]

Homeboy indirectly calling out Richard Dawrkins lol

[@davidthurman3963]

Reductionism is lame when taken so literally as Dawkins. He is the ken ham of genetics.

[@martam4142]

​@@davidthurman3963Reductionism is for simpletons. And according to Dawkins and his ilk: "Evolution never intended for us to understand Evolution".

[@alexleitchbscopen3905]

Life as a logical sequence of actions in a cell doesn't work but it should.

[@Philognosis1]

Loved him in the Italian Job.

[@Nevertook]

The genome is quantum. It’s not just in or off “switches”.

[@benhudson4014]

Methalation is on or off at the gene is it not?

[@MaxPower-vg4vr]

Let's now explore how we can apply logic, math, and physics to formalize the relationship between determinism and indeterminism in causality within the monadological framework. First, let's define our basic entities and relations: - Let M be the set of all monads (fundamental psychophysical entities). - Let T be a set of "time points" or "moments." - Let S be a function from M × T to some set of "states," where S(m, t) represents the state of monad m at time t. - Let C be a relation on M × M × T, where (m1, m2, t) ∈ C means monad m1 "causes" or "influences" monad m2 at time t. Now, let's formalize the idea of determinism and indeterminism in causality: - Determinism: ∀m ∈ M, ∀t ∈ T, S(m, t) is uniquely determined by {S(m', t') : (m', m, t') ∈ C}. - Indeterminism: ∃m ∈ M, ∃t ∈ T, such that S(m, t) is not uniquely determined by {S(m', t') : (m', m, t') ∈ C}. In other words, determinism means that the state of each monad at each time is uniquely determined by its causal influences, while indeterminism means that there are some monads whose states are not uniquely determined by their causal influences. We can formalize this further using the mathematical framework of graph theory and probability theory: - Let (M, E) be a directed graph, where E ⊆ M × M represents the "causal edges" between monads. - Let (Ω, F, P) be a probability space, where Ω represents the set of all possible "outcomes" or "histories," F is a σ-algebra on Ω, and P is a probability measure on F. - The determinism and indeterminism of causality can be expressed as: - Determinism: ∀m ∈ M, ∀t ∈ T, ∃f : Ω → S, such that S(m, t) = f(ω) for all ω ∈ Ω. - Indeterminism: ∃m ∈ M, ∃t ∈ T, such that ∀f : Ω → S, P({ω ∈ Ω : S(m, t) ≠ f(ω)}) > 0. Here, determinism is formalized as the existence of a function f that maps each possible outcome ω to a unique state for each monad at each time, while indeterminism is formalized as the non-existence of such a function (i.e., there are some monads whose states have a non-zero probability of differing from any given function). Finally, we can connect this to physics by noting that this formalism is compatible with both deterministic and indeterministic approaches to causality: - Deterministic models like classical mechanics describe the evolution of physical systems as uniquely determined by initial conditions and dynamical laws. - Indeterministic models like quantum mechanics describe the evolution of physical systems as inherently probabilistic, with outcomes determined only probabilistically by initial conditions and dynamical laws. The monadological framework accommodates both perspectives by treating determinism and indeterminism as emergent properties arising from the complex web of causal relations between fundamental monads. In summary, by using tools from logic, math (graph theory and probability theory), and physics (classical and quantum mechanics), we can formalize the both/and nature of determinism and indeterminism in causality within the monadological framework: - Causality is a relational structure arising from the web of causal influences between fundamental monads. - Causality exhibits both deterministic and indeterministic properties, depending on the scale and perspective of observation. - This formalism is compatible with both deterministic and indeterministic approaches to causality in physics. This showcases the potential of the monadological framework to provide a unified language for expressing and reconciling the complex, often seemingly contradictory nature of reality. By embracing a both/and perspective and drawing on the tools of logic, mathematics, and physics, we can develop a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding of the world and our place within it.

[@ckyn3t]

what in the chatgpt bot explanation is this?

[@MaxPower-vg4vr]

@@ckyn3t Was it difficult to follow? I attempted to keep these sticky topics firmly grounded in logic, math and physics. This is primarily how Leibniz would have tackled these issues as I believe he's our true universal genius (not Newton).

[@ckyn3t]

@@MaxPower-vg4vr yes, bot, it was

[@MaxPower-vg4vr]

@@ckyn3t Don't call me a bot, thanks.

[@baraskparas9559]

While the lipids of a cell are inherited so are the proteins and polynucleotides to begin with. The maintenance and increase ( growth ) of all parts of a cells' anatomy are dependent on Cricks' dogma of DNA to RNA to PROTEIN which evolved into being and was not present at life's origin as well as nutrition. Noble is wrong to go after Dawkins' idea of the selfish gene because it's almost right, in fact it's the polynucleotide itself whether a gene or non coding that is a selfish little predator , using nutrients in its ' environment to grow. All spelled out in " From Chemistry to Life on Earth " by Austin Macauley Publishers by Barask Paraskevopoulos . Publication date 21 June 2024. 292 references 267 pages- illustrated

[@alexleitchbscopen3905]

cell is just a mechanism or is it ?

[@deliyomgam7382]

If we're allowed to...I would change or exchange the nucleus of other cell with each other to see whether it do something or not. Since smallest needle is born.

[@sarcasmunlimited1570]

The genome moves accidentally, which enables evolution. While environmental factors may play a role in how the genome changes, it is not the driving factor in the genome's natural predisposition to change. It can only affect the characteristics of that change.

[@alexleitchbscopen3905]

Immortality , who's first , you, not you or you.

[@blueeyes8131]

Miss and mr understanding

[@margrietoregan828]

11:30. When Denis says ‘accretion of chunks of protein’ I pretty sure he misspoke here as he should of said ‘accretion of chunks of DNA’..

[@alexleitchbscopen3905]

if you understood lfe would you kill it ? or make things to.

[@mattzobian]

Ask yourself that when you're hungry.

[@alexleitchbscopen3905]

is this really rational observation

[@bonajab]

i.e. A DNA or RNA sequence could be produced in a prebiotic natural goo, but that wouldn't make a cell. Simultaneously, the cell membrane would have to be produced. The probability is vanishing. Same goes for DNA-favorable mutations (what I thought was evolution). Right? The machinery of the cell would have to tell the DNA how to mutate. Is the cell's machinery conscious?

[@ilevitatecs2]

always amazing to me when a cell phone rings more than once in an audience. if that happens, the owner of the cell phone should be physically silenced for a week

[@ianclements2871]

So Lamark was right?

[@cmaslan]

They where both right!!!!

[@ianclements2871]

@@cmaslan Thanks. I always thought that Lamark was on to something, because how else could growths occur as a response to physical pressure, etc? But Lysenko got the wrong aspect?

[@cmaslan]

@@ianclements2871 both lemark and darvin where right.

[@vittorio4866]

If you don't clarify what the information process is in life (information theory) you can say everything and the opposite of everything.

[@alexleitchbscopen3905]

People who look like people live forever , they're clever.

[@NikkiTrudelle]

Except for *mature* red blood cells

[@12390m]

Ebt 101 what happen

[@maheshdebata2991]

ତଥାପି ବୁଝି ପାରୁ ନାହିଁ ବା ବିଶ୍ୱାସ କରି ପାରୁ ନାହିଁ।

[@DanielLopes-kv4sp]

Everything is becoming a show .Of course one must get the upcoming book in.

[@alexleitchbscopen3905]

someone knows all your answers , they're keeping mumb though

[@jakebeard4499]

A study comes to mind in which they were observing bacteria and viruses helping one anothare you familiar wouldn't that be a selfish endeavor

[@gofiodetrigo8756]

am I alone in that background noise

[@marilynbyrne9958]

Ayurveda knew this 5,000 or so years ago!😊

[@--atheist]

🤦🤦

[@sahebchoudhury]

🤦🏽‍♂️

[@sarcasmunlimited1570]

This man is an example of how the phenomenon of "idiot savant" can produce genius. In the simple idiot savant case, a man can suffer developmental damage, and yet have photographic memory. In less specific cases, this phenomenon takes on the form of specialization in a particular area of science, art, music, or business. And while this man is by no means a genius, he is good at what he is talking about.

[@danaaswad8076]

A wealth of data from 23 AND ME clearly demonstrates that a persons personality is largely rooted in their genetics. That’s not to say that environment doesn’t act as a modulator, but it’s not the main thing. I feel sorry for this old gentleman.

[@yellowwoodstraveler]

I didn't know that 23 and Me did personality tests!

[@alexleitchbscopen3905]

Covid 19 as an intracellular multitool , yes,no ,fade out ?

[@alexleitchbscopen3905]

This is why you have stuff like covid19 in your lives , covid is something that should not exist but does.

[@nasirarushdi8980]

The statement of the Holy Quran is that humanbeing is as to as in the universe .And the structuer of human kind is also as like the statement of the holly spiritull mentiones .Allah challeged his All Anbia that you asked the believers of your nations is there any human being or rasool who create such beautifull structuer of humans that work himself action for his life .as you know better than us .Then why prffer the theory of Darwen .We say that human kind slowly slowly find the develop Ent in cultuer .

[@user-yi8gs2bd4r]

Oh gosh but I doubt he is right on this you know as soon you think you know it seems to change…..

[@AhmedAli-vt7wz]

And all these incredibly detailed complicated programming that we still don't understand was created out of nothing or chance 😂😂😂

[@alexleitchbscopen3905]

You're having problems making computer simulations of metabolic activity. maybe you never will.

[@Mindsi]

So what is the message? The signature in the cell😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂🎉🎉🎉😂😂😂

[@kitony]

Antiscience without saying directly

[@alekm4185]

What is antiscientific about it?

[@user-mo2sg8mf5k]

I’m not familiar with this channel. Is this legit science or pseudoscience made up bs?

[@blueeyes8131]

Dum

[@benhuffington8482]

STAY AWAY FROM OUR GENES.

[@musiclover81813]

too late but without engineering RNA many of us would be dead .. how do you think we so quickly received a Covid 19 vaccine?

[@Cineenvenordquist]

Not a chance, novel viri visit us every day, our cells and microbiomes exchange mRNA and some gets transcribed backwards in one chromosome or another. Try reading the open access articles in GEN.

[@franimal86]

Stop yelling

[@giannibozzato48]

The ORDER of genes is NOT the ORGANIZATION of genes. Knowing the sound of each piano' s digit you can not know the sinphony!!!

[@Mindsi]

@ph7.0🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉