Dawkins' PhD Examiner: Selfish Gene DAMAGED Science! - Dr Denis Noble & Perry Marshall

[@justinbrierley]

Hope you enjoy this interview!📘You can get a FREE CHAPTER from my book “The Surprising Rebirth of Belief in God” by signing up to my newsletter: justinbrierley.com/get-justins-newsletter/

[@ALavin-en1kr]

What does not make sense is evolution that is not to a prototype. The random selection thing to a non-existing prototype is magical thinking as is the evolution of one species from another and humanity not having its own prototype. It is all elemental only; matter only, they are clueless about consciousness; is it fundamental, and mind is it elemental emerging with quantum events. Total nonsense.

[@gerhardg8101]

@@ALavin-en1krthe emergence may be random, but the selection is mercyless as in destroying the useless/selfish. Natural selection is brutally theological :-)

[@ALavin-en1kr]

@ True. The mistake is seeing only one dimension; the material, rather than three: consciousness; mind, plus the elements or matter. Also not living simultaneously within the three dimensions. Instead there is a tendency to try to bring into or to mix one dimension with another. An example would be communism. Diversity is necessary at the physical or material level, community, or oneness, works only at the spiritual level. At the physical level it does not work. It works a little at the mental level as there can be the like-minded. Today consciousness is ‘the hard problem for philosophy.’ It is likely fundamental, with mind being elemental emerging with quantum events as does the dense or gross elements. We are, thankfully, moving away from the limitations of Darwinism, of not seeing humanity as evolving from its own unique human prototype, (rather than from the prototype of a different species); fourteen versions of humanity in a universal cycle as was perceived in a higher age. As we understand the quantum better it will all likely will be perceived as a play of ideas on substance. The ideas and substance being one and the same but playing different roles; all being consciousness in reality, or oneness; the singularity, not just a theory of everything, but actually everything.

[@ALavin-en1kr]

@ Either my reply doesn’t get posted or it it posted at the end not next to what I am replying to. Everything is theological as consciousness is fundamental and in the East in religion and philosophy it is referred to as God; one and the same.

[@lenawagner6405]

🥰🥰🥰🥰‼️❣️

[@thesecretplace1055]

Justin you are the greatest interviewer i have ever seen. Over the years I have witnessed the discussions of intellectual ideas and rational thoughts, and the clash of great minds which has had a crushing impact on the minds of many layman like me. Raiding through our garden of thoughts and ideas these new ways of seeing the world have reshaped our worldview and plucked the weeds that prohibited the growth of new flowers in ideas. And it has been you who has been the mediator of these great minds as they distilled their flowing thoughts which you helped guide in a calm manner like a shepherd to the great conversations that they shaped into. Sincerely Justin, thank you. Your purpose really has bled out to help the millions. Truly you purpose has been a great one.

[@geomicpri]

Just some constructive criticism here; the reason I (although a Christian) prefer Alex O’Connor to Justin is simply because of how well Alex steel-mans the other side. While the content here is good, there’s no serious pushback. So we viewers don’t learn to deal with the objections, we only learn how to confirm our own bias.

[@martinlag1]

This is a good point. I think similarly to Richard Dawkins. I suspect a hijacking of the word purpose when 'function' is what is observed and meant. I think Brierley primarily wants to validate his religious views. I think Marshall still wants to win an argument with his brother. I think Noble is discovering a whole new audience who are massaging his message. Now I've questioned everyones motives instead of steelmaning Nobles actual claims. I've heard Noble interviewed before and I like him outside this bubble. Brierley always places a scientist against two theists, including himself, the supposedly neutral interviewer.

[@arhabersham]

Great point, and observation! Thanks for sharing

[@kazkk2321]

I’m happy I’m not Dawkins. Imagine being an old scientist and be proven wrong by an old professor after fifty years

[@mcmanustony]

He hasn't been.

[@mamindhive]

​@mcmanustony he have been proven that he doesnt keep up with science in his debate with Professor Noble, just his comment about egg cells was enough to prove that he is stuck in the 80s and haven't kept up since with newer studies in 2016 or 2018

[@mcmanustony]

@@mamindhive which 2016 studies? Can you post a citation?

[@mamindhive]

@@mcmanustony somebody didn't even watch the debate yet claiming he knows who won it

[@mcmanustony]

@@mamindhive Who won the debate can be discerned by looking at the situation in biology today. Noble is as he has been for decades- a fringe figure of negligible significance in the subject. I was hoping you might actually cite some work presented at the RS meeting. Seems all you can do is regurgitate Perry Marshall's hype.

[@oliverjamito9902]

Thank you for attending!

[@ben0298]

I wonder if Dawkins ego would ever allow him to admit that he was incorrect 🤔 i suspect not.

[@rathraven1313]

The greatest the mind living doesn't need to admit being wrong. The aliens and being crazy are going to save him.

[@panzer00]

Dude cant even comprehend allegorical memes and he created the concept of meme. He is blinded by his own intellect.

[@Atheist272]

He is a scientist first and I suspect he would, if the evidence warranted it.

[@GetsugaTensho-p2c]

​@@Atheist272 did he?

[@midimusicforever]

@@Atheist272 You would be wrong there, because I've seen him not come around about things he's cearly wrong about multiple times.

[@aleksandrajerez6839]

Excellent episode! Especially today while there is a debate in the UK on assisted death. Amazingly spot on the time when we need to think clearly about what is a human being (before the definition changes). Thank you Justin for bringing this great thinkers together to talk so frankly about what really matters right now.

[@TeamDiezinelli]

I heard of Dr. Noble just a few months ago and I’m exited thst this conversation takes place on this channel.

[@marieparker3822]

There are a couple of chapters in 'The Selfish Gene' where Dawkins explains brilliantly the processes of meiosis and gene recombination in meiotic cell division. I have always thought that these two chapters should be extracted and rebound and given to every second-year secondary-school pupil, and the rest of the book discarded. No-one has ever agreed with me about that, but that is normal.

[@VaughanMcCue]

I am sure your peer-reviewed publication will put everyone straight.

[@arhabersham]

@@VaughanMcCuegreat answer

[@davidbeesley3390]

A brilliant contribution to the discussion.

[@DK-tk1nu]

Writing in the first half of the 20th century, Jesuit priest and palaeontologist Teilhard de Chardin's ground hypothesis was that evolution is directed, moving from simple to complex and eventually to consciousness. He finds this notion fully compatible with Christianity and proposes that evolution's ultimate telos is some sort of culmination in Christ. If this is the case, then the next phase of evolution must be driven ahead by love and Christianity is at the spearhead of evolution, urging it on in the direction of greater love. His synthesis is truly amazing and deserves greater attention.

[@thunderous-one]

What a load of testicular reproductive glands!

[@DK-tk1nu]

@thunderous-one Thank you.

[@the_usual_suspect9437]

Heresy!

[@DK-tk1nu]

@@the_usual_suspect9437 You're welcome to your view.

[@karenfulk191]

Christ in us, the hope of glory, is alchemy. The Purpose is to recreate us and is only achieved by spiritual rebirth, not natural evolution.

[@mk71b]

37:05 Why _should_ we have to take into account the trigger sensitivity of certain self-confessing scientists so as not to upset them with data and findings? Wasn't this precisely a major obstacle to real scientific progress and breakthroughs all along. Should we really want to create safe spaces for snowflake scientists?

[@fabioprescimone4845]

How come that such a great video has got less than 300 likes? Keep up the good work!!!

[@CurtOntheRadio]

Hmm. Heavy on the 'win', scant on the substance. Not impressed tbh.

[@arhabersham]

I would agree the lack of counter arguments makes the whole thing suspicious

[@michaels4255]

Poking holes in selfish gene theory is not the same thing as poking holes in the Neo-Darwinian synthesis. Does anyone really think these guys have disproved Fr. Mendel? Does anyone really believe that plant and animal breeding do not work??? Because that is the only way you will debunk Neodarwinism. You have to debunk animal husbandry at the same time! It is exactly the same process, with only the agent of selection being different.

[@howardlarsen2540]

Cells, Bodies 🌲 DNA RNA Water Fish Birds Flowers Feathers Instincts Photosynthesis Organs Blood Dragosaurs ++ had to be Ok to Go from DAY 1.Sounds like Genesis 1

[@gy5240]

Perhaps this is why parasitic medicine also seems to be anti cancer.

[@gerhardg8101]

At 48min Perry thinks of cancer to start as a symbiotic fusion. To me cancer it a biological example of the fall in the context not the cells. The fall is a poetic description of puberty, as in the establishment of the Self by the rejection of the parental authority over it. The cells in question become selfish, e.g. fail to apoptose /die as in give their life for the benefit of others. Cancer is the prime example for genes going selfish and it leads to the distraction of the system, e.g. takes it down with it. That’s how evolution works against selfishness and I hope we learn it in time before we blow up our planet

[@anderslarsson7426]

i am an engineer i should know ???????? Sorry you don’t !

[@mamindhive]

Yes he does, engineering requires understanding of designing concepts and the creativity and knowledge that go behind it, likewise for the universe and humans, basic logic really

[@mcmanustony]

@ not basic logic at all. Human constructs don’t reproduce, don’t compete for limited resources, don’t have genetics, aren’t subject to natural selection etc.

[@arhabersham]

@@mamindhiveno

[@matthewheadland7307]

Only half-way through, but for a guy in an athletics hoodie he is an wonderfully skillful moderator and interviewer.

[@scinerd11]

Dunking on Dawkins is not science. "I went viral for proving Dawkins wrong" or whatever is not productive. How is that man still guiding your narrative decades later?

[@Birdieupon]

The irony is that your complaint has nothing to do with the science, merely the alleged motives of the channel! Plus, it doesn’t even look like you’ve watched the video, given that both the guests explain the implications of Dawkins’ influence on science and why it urgently needs correcting.

[@Nicolas-S-Brown]

A holistic, multilevel approach to biology transcends the reductionist view. But it doesn't reveal anything about "evolution". The more we learn about the complexities of biological systems, the more difficult it becomes to explain their origins.

[@jeannovacco5136]

I took one seminar evolution in college ( longer ago than most people would care to admit) and then learned one thing. That is : Survival of the fittest means survival of the BEST FIT in an environment. It's not about competition or cooperation, but about the difference between rich environments where many organisms can find their best fit, and less rich environments where few organism can fit well enough to survive. I think a number of examples in the class had to do with trees and other vegetation vegetation and altitude (ans simultaneosly latitude). If true, the endlessly popularized phrase "survival of the fittest" is a bastardized turn of phase, easily disproven by the amount of cooperation that exists in life... for example motorists keeping to their side of the road, rather than hogging the roadway and destroying themselves and other drivers and their potential offspring.

[@Nicolas-S-Brown]

If life embodies metaphysical elements, such as agency and purpose, then its origins cannot be explained purely by physical processes. This is the basic premise of the Creationary Synthesis - life comprises the physical and the metaphysical.

[@unknowncowman]

I'm waiting for the "I'm now going to correct accomplished scientists being a total layman myself"-people.

[@mk71b]

Don't be such a pathetic looser 🤦‍♂️

[@ithurtsbecauseitstrue]

to combat the appeal-to-authority fallacious arguers?

[@ithurtsbecauseitstrue]

do you have the credentials to judge?

[@unknowncowman]

@@ithurtsbecauseitstrue I don't have the credentials. That's why I'm not dumb enough to try and correct 2 doctors who both have infinitely more clue about what they're talking about.

[@ithurtsbecauseitstrue]

@unknowncowman so you also say that about various creationist scientists as well, right? Or just in defense of the mainstream, accept-it-or-get-marginalized totally-openminded narrow-viewed science crowd that loves to leverage science to make unscientific statements against God to prop up their godless atheism?

[@antbrown9066]

“If you subject the Predictions from genetics / genome sequencing ….to possible disease…..the answer is zilch”

[@hwd7]

Hi Justin, I stopped watching Unbelievable! when you left. Great to see you again with great guests.

[@praxitelispraxitelous7061]

Can you PLEASE bring Dennis Noble with Michael Behe?

[@CJFCarlsson]

And how does "shut up" work as a scientific argument?

[@HYOZAN2024]

Such exciting combo, you brought up here. shout out from Seoul, ! (surprised to see South Korea in the chapters.) It would be awesome to see prof. Denis Noble and Thomas N. Seyfried collaborate on cancer treatment. He criticized current somatic theory of cancer, and maybe they can work something out..! I watched the whole debate between prof. Noble and Richard Dawkins last year, many of his lectures last year and learned about Evolution 2.0 Prize and the third way of evolution.

[@anhumblemessengerofthelawo3858]

I would suggest the work of Ernst Rossi, for example his book _The Psychobiology of Gene Expression._ He was a close colleague of Dr Milton Erickson, the grandfather of hypnotherapy. Mind you.

[@harlowcj]

Man, what a channel this is becoming.

ALL good for ALL of you

[@slimynaut]

Praise our Lord Jesus Christ

[@creativesarise]

I love perry marshals book

[@michaelcamilleri8554]

Going to have to rethink generational degeneration of DNA, must be happening by chemical or frequency Interference

[@lourensgrobbelaar6664]

Evolutionary malfunction is just another way of saying mutation.

[@gerhardg8101]

Nice to see some to get it. I proposed this for more than a decade that the purpose of evolution is to ensure the propagation of life. Natural selection is not who feeds fights and fu*** fastest but who supports creation, e. g. Who loves thy neighbour like thy own -not oneself. It is that rule of giving up the selfishness for the benefit of others. In consequence it benefits the self as well. Now why do we propose that eternal life is to be the eternal self? It sounds like the fall 2.0, it makes us like God

[@Atheist272]

These three seem to be talking at cross-purposes (pun intended). Denis is talking about cellular evolutionary purpose, whilst the other two interpret this as spiritual-purpose. Evolution is more complex than simple Darwinian survival of the fittest, or Dawkin’s selfish gene and Noble’s ideas on cellular evolutionary purpose needs to be added into the mix. The interplay of these three ideas are all needed to understand evolution better. They tell us nothing about God.

[@Birdieupon]

Does it not even tip the scales ever so slightly in favour of a God hypothesis if we grant that the cellular level is imbued with purpose compared to being driven by totally blind, purposeless genes?

[@eladio_cro_warface]

Biology is best and endless prof for God if you ask me 😊

[@martinlag1]

Scientists are less likely to be theists because they study the real world. Amongst scientists, biologists are even less likely to be theists. Biological evolution explains the only mechanism for complexity and the origin of function in living organisms. Biology is obviously not proof for any Gods if you ask biologists.

[@watchman2866]

Would Darwin believe it today? I think acceptance and rejection come as generation arguments more than conversion.

[@JardineKarate1]

Purpose driven: is the purpose not survival and reproduction just as evolutionary theory suggests?

[@Birdieupon]

I think the difference is that Dawkins would say that it’s the gene which blindly drives survival and reproduction, whereas Noble is arguing that it’s the organism itself which operates purposively, and the genes are merely subservient (ie it’s not a blind process).

[@hwd7]

Purpose is the opposite to luck and chance which are the drivers of blind evolution. Purpose bespeaks teleology, plan, and design.

[@JardineKarate1]

@ do you think the ‘plan’ is more than simply to survive and procreate?

[@Birdieupon]

@ no idea! But his point is that it doesn’t come from the genes, and it’s in-built.

[@Birdieupon]

@ Yes, and that’s precisely Noble’s point: evolution is not blind. Dawkins has mischaracterised it. You can’t just define evolution as “what Dawkins thinks”.

[@gerhardg8101]

At 37 minutes Justin mistakes religion for theology. Perry puts his finger on that wound that the hate for religion is what drove atheism for so long as it is built on the idea of submitting the self to God, perhaps because they saw that it had become a submission to the hierarchy of religious institutions and therefore lost its purpose.

[@someone-w9n]

Dawkins spent too much time debating religious dogma that he himself became dogmatic about his own science. Forgetting thr important fact that science is not dogma.

[@louisehaley5105]

What matters most, is not whether an argument is old or new, but whether it’s false or true ! Controversial ideas aren’t always correct, simply because they are believed by a select few. We also know that controversy sells, be it books or lectures etc. However, I’m not suggesting this is the case here, as I’m sure Dennis Noble has honorable intentions and is convinced by his arguments. Nor am I in the position to say he’s wrong,(not being a scientist myself). But regardless if the universe is purposeless or not, it’s up to us to create our own purpose. Even Richard Dawkins himself said as much in The Selfish Gene. “We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators.” Through the purpose of natural selection, we’ve evolved big brains to ask such questions and confront our evolutionary destiny.

[@tyronelol]

Yessir!

[@DinkanFollower]

Noble's first argument is a classical case of assuming an argument for your opposition and then countering it for your satisfaction. The Dawkinians never claimed that there are genes for this and genes for that.

[@mrshankerbillletmein491]

Any departure from Neo Darwinism is a challenge to the settled science narrative. People have been told this is how it is we have it all worked out

[@jamesraymond1158]

Total nonsense. These men are wasting their lives on a problem that they invented.

[@MarkPatmos]

It does seem obvious human beings act with purpose and agency, such as creation of technology, even science and rational thought itself. We are able to create with purpose and design in many different ways, even if you don't believe in God this is still true. Question is does pure materialism or naturalism explain this?

[@VidkunQL]

Are you asking how human brains work (according to current scientific theory)? Would the question work as well if it were about mice?

[@MarkPatmos]

⁠@@VidkunQLMice act with a degree of purpose and agency, as well as some form of consciousness I'm guessing. But maybe agency and purpose must have emerged in first cells or molecules from which life formed, even though I'm not sure how. Might have heard it had something to do with sunlight or need for energy, but haven't really heard what current theories are and I am not a scientist.

[@VidkunQL]

@@MarkPatmos I am a scientist, and I cannot make out what you're asking.

[@MarkPatmos]

@@VidkunQLDo you understand words purpose and agency, and also consciousness? Agency involves being able to make a choice, purpose is acting with intent or having a goal or an aim. Consciousness is connected with awareness from a first-person perspective. According to materialism these must simply be emergent properties I'm guessing but is this an actual explanation? Maybe according to materialism there also may be a theory there is no free will at all and consciousness is an illusion, but not sure what latest scientific theories are about how brain works.

[@VidkunQL]

​@@MarkPatmos I'm not sure what you mean by _"actual explanation",_ but a simple computer program can have agency and purpose (as you've defined them), and maybe consciousness too, as long as we think of consciousness as a matter of degree. (I mean something a system can have more or less of, as opposed to something discrete-- there must be a standard term for that... "Continuously variable"? "Gradual"? "Indiscrete"?) If you want the latest theories of how the brin works, I can't help you, as I'm not a neurologist. As for _free will,_ I've never had a conversation about that that went anywhere, and I've come to suspect that that's why people use the term.

[@jonatasmachado7217]

Dawkins' selfish gene will die with him...

[@MS-od7je]

Morphology is ( at least) iteratively specific, rotationally specific and vibrationally specific. The morphology of a passion flower is the same pattern of a note played to an oscilloscope. It is not the pattern of the initial stoke vibration but mid tone diminishment of the force strike. Words are morphological in topological patterns of toroidal energy/waves.

[@jimmiemiller9830]

Man is not a body that has a soul but a soul that utilizes a body of diverse cellular life.

[@judgementhallcollections8168]

May I ask if the idea is similar for a dog or fish..having soul?

[@jimmiemiller9830]

Absolutely, only the capability of the soul differs as much as the physical.

[@toomanymarys7355]

Sounds like Hinduism.

[@geeboom]

Dennis Noble did himself a great disservice by getting in bed with creationists.

[@Birdieupon]

When did he ever do that? Perry Marshall (the other guest) in this interview repudiates creationism, and Denis himself dismisses them as "fundamentalists" (did you watch the interview)?

[@Gibby1257-oy7oi]

Purpose Potential possibility to manifest the true human-our elder brother the prototype the [god man] Peter 1:3-4, the message is that through the [knowledge of God], believers can share in the divine nature and escape the corruption of the world:

[@chenriquesiqueira]

Why Denis Noble is teaming up with someone with zero credentials in the that complex field of science, like Perry Marshall?

[@johnjackson9767]

Is credentialism a necessary component of good science?

[@gerhardg8101]

@@johnjackson9767someone with a PHD can still be an idiot. He is just an idiot with a certificate

[@nataliamundell6266]

@gerhardg8101 literally his specialist field but go off I'd like to see you disprove him

[@mikebellamy]

Life is an information processing system designed to reproduce! We know it was designed because information is a communication of meaning in a language! And meaning and language are unique attributes of mind! Therefore God is the correct and only answer to where it all came from!

[@patrickm8316]

There is nothing in what Dr. Dennis Noble explains that proves the hand of a creator in producing life. This is simply two religious individuals using a scientific explanation to try to prove, without evidence, that there is a God.

[@Birdieupon]

Why can’t the purposiveness of biology be evidence of God? Evidence is that which is more likely on hypothesis X than hypothesis not-X.

[@gerhardg8101]

⁠​⁠@@Birdieuponevidence is that what causes beliefs, proof is what terminates it. The existence of proof is however proof of a logos behind reality

[@gerhardg8101]

Your statement is self refuting as in the creation of life by God would imply God not to have life already. No wonder you have problem with a living God

[@Birdieupon]

@ sorry mate but that’s a ridiculous definition of evidence. If evidence is “that which causes beliefs” then lying and indoctrination are evidence. Sounds like you’re making it up as you go.

[@midimusicforever]

Dawkins, oh Dawkins...

[@MarkPatmos]

Interesting that Dawkins seems to personify genes and calls it selfish, he also often personifies natural selection. Even though a process itself requires design (and therefore intelligence) and natural selection must occur without design and just be a series of connected events that our minds interpret as a process with purpose.

[@MarkPatmos]

Even in neo-Darwinist or Dawkins understanding of evolution that is driven by genes, there still is purpose. I'm guessing it must have been understood as emergent purpose or ignored.

[@MS-od7je]

In the beginning I am that I am Created that which is From that which is not The spirit of I am who I am Moved on the depths Of the formless and void Moving by spirit The essence of pattern The image of existence Onto which all things Kinds and likenesses Are called to map All meaning and purpose I am what I am Spoke in fractal terms The geometric shapes of All things real, material Being the observer Collapsing the wave Of non being function Of all created things Kinds and likenesses of being In the simultaneity of the pattern Of being I am that I am Divided light from darkness A cosmological constant Of darkness moving Faster than light And light moving At least time Through the pattern Now known as the face Of the deep I am that I am Thus created by moving Speaking and observing Calling to meaning Dividing time-space-energy To form the kinds Likenesses and images Of all being

[@ezero419]

gibberish on gibberish, all this gibberish!

[@MS-od7je]

@@ezero419thank you for your kindness

[@MS-od7je]

@ convenient how it all maps to present physics. Accidents will happen. Here’s to the belief that meaningless nothingness is more intelligent than all humans ( and their computers) in creating life( from nothing). An excellent hill to die on : the hill of purposeful purposelessness transformed by the unintended intention. A coherent cognitive gibberish.

[@Si_Mondo]

​@@ezero419Are you illiterate? 😂

[@seanpierce9386]

As an ex-Christian atheist who isn’t terribly fond of Dawkins, this was an interesting talk. In an effort to combat Creationism and promote a narrative, it’s possible that we’ve become too dependent on an oversimplified model for evolution. However, I don’t think this is a new idea, and I don’t think the proposed solution works. Whatever paradigm shift needs to happen, it has to be specific, predictive, and expressible in the language of biology. Introducing philosophical and moral language muddies the waters. This is just another oversimplified narrative.

[@gusolsthoorn1002]

Why is it necessary to combat creationism? What is the great threat in people believing God created?

[@seanpierce9386]

@ I should have specified: Young Earth Creationism. You’re right, a view of creation which incorporates real science is not problematic.

[@ben0298]

Science does not need to be an enemy of Christianity, but many scientists appear to want it to be.

[@gusolsthoorn1002]

@@seanpierce9386 Creation scientists that i know employ real science.

[@trevorsoh2130]

Do you know the Korean scientists recently discovered how to grow diamonds in non-extreme temperatures at atmospheric pressure- within weeks! No hyperbole here. That finding in itself brings into question the whole narrative that the geological structure and minerals takes billions of years to form. - From a logical point of view. Show me any complex software program or building or a car or a sculpture that come into existence by purely systemic chance. Why would God need all these things to come into existence systemically, wapeciallly when everything single part of any animals bodies has a purpose and incredible efficiency. It’s obvious design, purposefully made by an intellect so far beyond our own. And let’s say you find miracles in the Bible just too unbelievable - we have now have some evidence of the actually places of Sodom and Gomorrah - destroyed by Sulfur from the sky and we have evidence of ancient Egyptian poet describing the ten plagues that hit them during the time of exodus (Ipuwer). It’s date to that timeframe of exodus. The funny thing is the more time goes on the little nuggets of evidence that’s shows up. Did you know that there are ancient Chinese characters thag go back to the earliest chinese history that allude to biblical events like the Noah’s family and the flood.

[@nash984954]

effing clickbait. Not new, Dawkins never claimed a direction of any kind for research based on genes, Nobel wants a poece of the science pie. EO Wilson already grabbed it with the -epi-whatever researchers. Any research was never limited to what, again, Dawkins said or did regarding genes. Research forever depends on abibilty to copy previous research and obvious predicability[peer review requires that duplication, else then what can any 'peer' do to decide truth of 'yuck']. Grandstanding is what this video is by Nobel and his acolyte[the other guy, his cohort].

[@MarkPatmos]

It seems a cell has agency and purpose, as demonstrated by lung cells mentioned, but can't see how it could actually be conscious at this level? Unless it is God playing a practical joke😅

[@Baker311]

Many levels of blind might make it seem like it aint blind.

[@natokafa5238]

The three frauds

[@andrewjohnson8232]

Wow - deep.

[@VaughanMcCue]

@@andrewjohnson8232 Accuracy in small bundles.

[@sharpie6888]

“Anyone I don’t like is a fraud”

[@aosidh]

You people and your conspiracy theories

[@gerhardg8101]

You sound like one of those hating religion more that science

[@aosidh]

@gerhardg8101 you caught me

[@gregkirk1842]

Holy fuck that preview was Waaaaaay to long and confused