Gene, Organism and Environment with Richard Lewontin

[@Elmirgtr]

Lewontin is amazing. They never mention people like these in undergraduate or graduate BioSci programs. Biological determinism was always an implicit message in our genetics courses.

[@valerioguagnelliscanzani643]

One of the most perceptive smart open minded scientist ever met.

[@sydbarret7765]

thank you Richard for giving culture a place!

[@DivisionbyZer0]

He is giving you concepts from ecological evolutionary developmental systems theory which you will not find in a lot of college books on biology or evolution.

[@boyu1568]

This is what a great intellectual really is. I look up to his model. RIP Richard

[@2bsirius]

This is an excellent repudiation of the faulty argument of biological determinism. It's too bad that it gets too little attention outside of the biological sciences.

[@DivisionbyZer0]

and lewontin addresses this -- it's called co-construction or co-evolution. Organisms and environments have mutual circular causal relations on one another, Don't need to posit a separate adaptation. It's already there in coconstruction.

[@kofipapa2886]

He is just brilliant for me because I get what he is saying in a profound way.

[@qigong1001]

Concepts are developed by experimental study and observation, then placed into words. Thats how its done. (I changed this comment by replacing the word "relay" with "developed" , got excited!)

[@EileenFlores]

What are the problems with the humulin molecule? My son has Type One and I'm worried now!

[@Footnotes2Plato]

yay for dialectical biology.

[@dondonfrias3905]

Here in philippines it very hard to get all the book by richard lewontin, maybe you can help me, i love to read ito even used books

[@qigong1001]

I think you forgot what point you were defending. It was me who was defending "adaptation." It is you supporting Lewontin and his "construction" theory. If you go back and read the thread, you will see I said repeatedly adaptation and construction GO TOGETHER , but makes no sense to quibble with these words without some form of serious study which leads to a conceptual understanding that goes beyond words. If you want to debate what comes first, "words" or "concepts" I will be glad to do so.

[@DivisionbyZer0]

Your question is irrelevant. We have discussed the specific issues already. You said you think adaptation is wrong, I said I think it makes no sense without the recognition that "the environment" which, is predominantly the biosphere, is habitable due to the ongoing ecological and metabolic interactions that sustain it / create it.

[@DivisionbyZer0]

In itself adaptation isn't a bad metaphor sure, as long as it is recognized that there are complex feedback interactions. This is conveyed to the popular mind the way these notions are employed and explained by many professionals. That's the whole point of his talk.

[@rosanavalli100]

Necesito los subtítulos de este video para pasar en clases de la universidad. Si alguien dispone de ellos, por favor, me gustaría conseguirlos. Gracias,

[@DivisionbyZer0]

Care to substantiate this claim?

[@qigong1001]

Go back and read the comments. And why are you discussing cybernetics now? We were talking about why I think adaptation is still a relevant topic.

[@qigong1001]

Well then, I guess you agree with me that concepts are more important than words. As I recall Sapir supported the idea that words influence ideas. Not the other way around.

[@qigong1001]

As I said, they go together. ... but,their effects are not always equal. Which is why they are given separate terms. They example I gave for ocean and its life forms exemplifies this. It is not likely that an oceanic fish will change the ocean as much as the inverse. I'm sure lewontin knows this and you know this already. It is complex process. I don't think any "word" will do it justice. It just has to be studied to be understood.

[@camalejon]

Lewontin has got a respectable place in biology`s scenarios. Sadly, a few biologist know his books and papers, so crazy people like E. O. Wilson or James Watson are considered wise scientist.

[@TheDNAProblem]

Along these same lines I have made a series of videos under theDNAproblem here on KZbin. I invite you to take a critical look at the implications of DNA and evolution.

[@qigong1001]

As I said, they go together. ... but,their effects are not always equal. Adaptation happens ALONG with "construction" But forget about these terms. The important thing, which lewontin deemphasized is the interactions are MUTUAL between environment and life form, but NOT always equal. There is no simple word or formula that can convey this. It has to be STUDIED.

[@DivisionbyZer0]

*isn't conveyed. Most people believe the environment is effectively a "container" for organisms which couldn't be further from the truth.

[@qigong1001]

You have to understand, Lewontin sets himself apart via his individualistic approach. Thats how you get people to listen to you. Nothing wrong with that. But to understand evolution fully you have to read the subject. The "new words" or old words won't help you. Labels will do nothing.

[@xb360]

he exhibits deep insights...

[@qigong1001]

I'm not concerned with the "popular mind" or "neodarwinsts" think since they have the same hang ups with labels and forget concepts. . However, it is clear lewontin is talking to a laymens audience. And for him to minimize "adaptation" is silly.

[@qigong1001]

I'll talk with you some more later . You seem like your worth debating. Fun!

[@ejarendee8111]

I wish Aron Ra would watch this video...He might actually learn something...

[@livinginthespirit407]

I wonder how receptive Aron is to learning something outside of his ideological paradigm.

[@freandwhickquest]

@@livinginthespirit407 explain what he should learn?

[@livinginthespirit407]

​@@freandwhickquest Well Aron's world view is overwhelmingly dominated by severe and dogmatic atheism and anti-theism which makes it seemingly impossible for him to see the disconfirming evidence against his belief system. I believe the original poster in this thread was likely referring to this. Be well.

[@freandwhickquest]

@@livinginthespirit407 lewontin himself also identifies as a materialist lol. :)

[@gamerknown]

Shame about the Deone quintuplets, no room for dignity there...

[@angelotenfennicoladeli2987]

muito bom

[@mikebellamy]

This has to be one of the best arguments for creation of life by God in all its diversity in the beginning with no place of evolution.

[@DivisionbyZer0]

Individualism is another hang up of neodarwinian view. There would be no ocean suitable for fish without the life histories of organisms.

[@DivisionbyZer0]

Concepts are conveyed in large part by language when I last checked.

[@ovenlovesyou]

Exactly.

[@qigong1001]

(cont.) Division, since you say "words view is bullshit" than do you really believe words are more important than concepts ? Perhaps you need to start over.

[@qigong1001]

Forget about the "new words." You seem to understand the basic concept. If you want to understand more read some university books on the subject of biology and evolution. New words won't help you...they are just that... only words.

[@qigong1001]

"ecological evolutionary developmental systems"....sorry pal, your not impressing anyone here. Let me ask you something, is there anything you disagree with Lewontin about, or are you just a follower?

[@DivisionbyZer0]

moot convo.

[@TheAtheistRealist]

Starts off by criticizing biologists for using too many loose metaphors to simplify biology for the public - finishes with a loose metaphor about trees performing mathematical calculations in order to flower. I find his examples banal and completely in line with the 'selfish gene' view of life.

[@raymondpierotti8414]

You have no idea what you are talking about. Lewontin basically opposes Selfish gene thinking. If you had listened carefully to the first 15 minutes you would recognize this.

[@123axel123]

"You have to believe what biologists because they are experts". And then: "Never believe a biologist that says DNA is self-replicating" "Organisations do not develop, but unfortunately we don't have another word so I will use the word develop" - sophistry! Who uses transparencies in 2004? That plant experiment at 17 min could be very racist. What about if races have different preferred environment for their gene expression? Nevertheless, it is an interesting idea if the gene expression could cross depending on the environment.

[@mikebellamy]

_"I use the metaphor 'machine' which is problematic"_ No he uses the term *machine* because *cellular machines are machines in the true sense of the word.* And they can only have been created by an intelligent mind outside of the universe ie God!

[@mikebellamy]

_"never again believe any biologist"_ taken out of context yes but as a Freudian slip qualifies admirably on its own.

[@DivisionbyZer0]

The only words view is bullshit.

[@realitythumper9655]

I see what this guy is doing here. He has to "re-dine" words, so that it meets his ideology. I love how he throws in that he's a fireman (shows he's just a guy like you and me) throws out a word in French, German, Hebrew, and Spanish (to show you just how smart he is) Who does that shit? lol! I love the psychology this guy uses. I feel like I'm buying a used car from this guy And what does he have to say about all the other sciences that confirmed evolution? Is he going to get them to redefine their work too? Come on!

[@Squish888]

+Reality Thumper He's not dis-confirming evolution... He's just saying its more complicated than conventional neo-Darwinism plays it out to be.

[@fredhubbard7210]

Sorry that you were confused by his advocating for engaging in ideas of complexity. If you want simplistic ideas, stick to the mainstream media.

[@raymondpierotti8414]

I suspect that you get sold used cars all the time if your level of critical thinking is what you reveal here.

[@DamianSAAAN]

You exposed a lot about yourself with this comment. It's common in academia to use words in other languages, probably to get to the root of its meaning. This has gone on through the history of academia, it isn't just specific to him. You'd know that if you read an academics book. And he's not an anti-evolutionist. He WAS an evolutionary biologist.