The unselfish gene | Denis Noble challenges Richard Dawkins

[@TheInstituteOfArtAndIdeas]

What do you think - can organisms change their DNA? Let us know your thoughts in the comments! To watch the full talk, visit: iai.tv/video/the-gene-machine?KZbin&+comment

[@johnnymcauley6216]

As Noble says "We don't yet know it's effect", but we'll just go ahead with the CRISPR program anyway without knowing the long term effects.

[@keshavleitan7800]

would like to watch it but unfortunately I have to pay a subscription.

[@BulentBasaran]

DNA changes through mutations and partial, and sometimes total, crossover.. CRISPR only speeds things up. Long term effects are never predictable either way. Just remember mathematical chaos and how it manifests in nature like the butterfly effect.

[@rcoz2685]

Denis Noble speaks beautifully, with care and gentleness for his topic a pleasure to listen to! It has been so long since hearing someone talk about science with such a respect and kindness for what he talks about, thank you for sharing!

[@surojeetchatterji9966]

​@@BulentBasaran There is something powerful than gene & doing evolution with add mixing genes in nature. Its controlling everything like a simulation.

[@mistermuso2734]

The title of this should be: Richard Dawkins meets a Time Lord and his companion

[@warrenbond32]

Yeah but when's K9 going to show up?

[@leyubar1]

If only I could upvote 10 times

[@XShollaj]

😂😂😂

[@Tetradepodmelontea]

😅😅😅

[@b_g_c3281]

@mistermuso I feel that your comment doesn't have _nearly enough_ 'likes'....

[@sillybilly7590]

This is all fine and well, but have they considered that the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell?

[@hrc7715]

Not for prokaryotes it ain't :3

[@devjyoti5614]

Wait it's not ribosomes? Wtf

[@sampreece]

@@sillybilly7590 Epigenetics

[@SOI-wl2lo]

😄🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@chonkychonk]

Mitochondria be powering the tube trains

[@yuhansungscoffee]

Denis noble explains complicated concepts in a most lucid manner. He expounds on sub-concepts complete with citations, including basic concepts as well, for the benefit of the listener. It was such a joy listening to him (though I’m simply not versed in biology)

[@rembeadgc]

As well as throwing in proper metaphors.

[@fitness6681]

Noble is on another level. He doesn’t generalise - he delves into the enormous complexity and knows we are only scratching the surface when it comes to knowledge about cell function

[@Jahwobbly]

If he were really onto something, he wouldn't be laboring so hard to baffle us with minutiae that take forever to describe and in the end are less than impressive.

[@telwood15]

There's little doubt that Noble is on a different level to Dawkins.

[@joostgolsteyn3193]

Yes lower 😂​@tevya017

[@ObjectiveAnalysis]

He’s an intellectual giant and is a ferocious lion when it comes to defending the truth and intellectual integrity. Words can’t express the respect I have for this extraordinary soul.

[@coreydrum7956]

I disagree, the peak of science and knowledge isn't from deep specific expertise on an exact fact that was just discovered. Instead, the height of achievement is the generalisation of a number of extremely complex mechanisms and find the governing law that dictates the final results.

[@sebrider5695]

THAT is how you debate and discuss (at times) opposing ideas. So respectful of each other, acknowledging and connecting each others sucesses, yet debating the questionable with such elegance. 👌 Amazing what we both know and don't know in biology.

[@bj6515]

Gentleman having a civil discussion, any politicians watching how it's done. Don't make me laugh.

[@TheGreatPerahia]

It's because Noble a fellow biologist. However religious people and scientists that claim to be religious he shows less respect for, sometimes none.

[@jonathancrick1424]

@@TheGreatPerahia Yes, I think Dawkins should stick to biology. I don't think he has made any contribution at all to the religion/god/atheism debate. He seems incapable of empathy when talking to religious people.

[@harsewaksingh3829]

@@jonathancrick1424 nah.. He's done pretty good in that field as well.. Pretty good arguments

[@jonathancrick1424]

@@harsewaksingh3829 Yeah, but how hard is it to construct a logical argument against a belief in God(s)? How many believers has he converted with his unassailable logic? He as condescending jerk and terrible at delivering a persuasive argument. Plus, he's hypocritical. Have you ever heard him wax poetic on the transcendent beauty of the natural world? The natural world is neither beautiful nor transcendant. Not until a human projects that perspective onto it. He's searching for meaning just as much as religious people who see a god or gods behind it all. To be a real atheist, one has to acknowledge that there _is_ no inherent meaning to any of this. Most all of us are religious when the concept is considered broadly. Dawkins seems to have no awareness of the incredible privileges he has as a person with the background and intelligence he inherited, all of which brought him to his perspective. Not everyone is so lucky. Plus, does he ever stop to consider the existence of religious belief across literally all human culture as far back as we can look? Wouldn't that suggest that there may be some evolutionary benefit to whatever it is that makes us this way? He's an intelligent man, Dawkins, but only in a very narrow line of inquiry. And what about the whole selfish gene thing? I agree with his colleague. Dawkins' idea seems to imply some sort of volition that can't be there. And have you ever heard his hypothesis about bats hearing in color? Watch how excited he gets talking about that idea, one that is based on no empirical evidence whatsoever. Sorry for the crazy response. Obviously, I have my issues with Dawkins.

[@Chippycito]

When I first studied molecular biology in the 1980's at Northwestern University, my professors and fellow students believed me to be a bit over-exuberant when I had the insight that the cytoskeleton--of which microtubules are a part--has a vastly important role in cellular function. Now, almost 40 years later, it is quite validating to learn that maybe I wasn't so dumb after all.

[@lightsabre87]

Your insight is so broad and vague that it’s like saying the liver has a vastly important function in human physiology. Don’t flatter yourself!

[@billybro1403]

@@lightsabre87 ikr lol! yeah no sh!t microtubules have an important role in cellular function :P

[@Primitarian]

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they attack you, then they say they privately knew the truth all along.

[@lachlanscanlan5621]

@@lightsabre87which would mean his professors were incompetent

[@billgates-qi9st]

Many professors are incompetent. They win their accolades and 50 years later are proved wrong. The logical positivism of A j Ayer is a case in point. Quantum physics clearly shows this theory is nonsense. Same with Darwin who based a whole world view on the different shaped beaks of finches on an isolated island. If alien scientists came to earth and met people on North Sentinal island they would make a mistake if they assumed humans were a hunter gatherer species. This is the fault of scientists, they do not have a wide enough perception.

[@naayou99]

This important lesson for laymen: do not take one view for granted; wait and listen to the other expert. You may not understand the topic fully, but you will realize that this is an ongoing debate and the lab will be the final judge.

[@kevinrung4178]

I think you might have missed the point. Much of this knowledge is laboratory -resistant.

[@naayou99]

@@kevinrung4178 To my best knowledge, professor Noble is an authority in his field despite the fact that his area of research is not mainstream. But this the beauty of science let's the lab decide. When you say laboratory-resistant, does this mean untestable? if so, then it is not science.

[@shabirmir9597]

Denis Noble's illustration is marvellous. How intra cellular mechanisms are coordinating through organisational machinery, and then it raises the question as how cellular processes distantly located are coordinating for single and multiple results at organisms level without each cell unaware of each. other and of distantly located.

[@garryharriman7349]

I think this is a conversation where the average joe is required to simply nod and smile!😂

[@Marenqo]

I think the idea that the surface being affected by the nucleus through calcium networks is novel to me

[@garryharriman7349]

@@Marenqo I'm smiling. I'm nodding! 😂

[@Marenqo]

@@garryharriman7349 😆

[@omp199]

@@Marenqo I'm pretty sure that Prof. Noble was talking about it the other way round: the nucleus being affected by what happened at the surface.

[@SeanMoore]

I respectfully disagree. All he is saying is that organisms ( ourselves included) are able to exert some control on how we evolve over time by either changing in response to our environment and/or changing our environment directly.

[@pjane9231]

Example of fist and Scotland dist. Is good for comparison but at molecular or intracellular level the speed of information transfer on comparitve scale is very very high...!!

[@antoniov64]

I agree with whoever is right.

[@stephenridley1153]

@@antoniov64 Eventually....neither. Mark my words ❤️

[@antoniov64]

@@stephenridley1153 Ok I agree with you

[@kevinrung4178]

I'm always right, just ask anyone who knows me.

[@davidharber6790]

Richard and Denis trying to self replicate Paul Weller's haircut!!

[@paultorbert6929]

Love The Jam !!!!!!!

[@Bogos-Kalemkiar]

Neo-evolutionary theory a la Dawkins is for the Dodos

[@OilCanHarry2U]

Lights going out and a kick in the balls, I’ll tel ya, that’s evolution, that’s evolution.

[@ktheodor3968]

Wait till you see Daniel Dennett and his hair-facial hair grooming fashion: Charles Darwin reincarnate.

[@futures2247]

like so much else in science they failed to replicate or the results are far worse than the original

[@StatedCasually]

Is Denis claiming that cells can decide what specific, new mutations they need by sensing the environment and then actively triggering the needed mutations? Or is Denis just talking about SOS modes and things of that sort? I've seen his work. To my knowledge, neither he nor anyone else has demonstrated that cells can figure out what specific mutation they need and then give it to themselves. If anyone reading this knows of this actually being done, let me know the names of the papers this was shown in.

[@madmartigan8119]

Yes, the environment plays a role in what genes are turned on and off

[@seanrowshandel1680]

Noble is saying that "being A Good Boy has good effects on your genes". I LIKE him, and always kind of thought that The Selfish Gene was inaccurate and didn't really EXPLAIN that it was a manifesto of rebellion against the scientists. (Obviously, manners are what have been keeping us alive because they are the most basic level of social awareness, through which evolution takes place. Writing books about science is for Dedicated Scientists to do, rather than Any Weirdo who has gained access to a keyboard) I need people like Noble because the others are very dangerous extremists who do not submit to Reason (because they are publicly implying that they specifically don't believe in Reason, as per their choice which they've already made). Never care about whistleblowers. Let's be honest: they simply show up in the news when "we" are being demonstrated why whistleblowing, as a concept, has no place in society (or even reality). "Leaking info" has no meaning because nobody can come up with such an idea without there being something very, very wrong about the way that he was raised. Parenting is, in fact, Specifically NOT A RELIGION. So, if your manager is telling you to keep him up to date, he might be "on a different side than you". This paranoia, along with the adage, "Better to be a nobody in my nation than A King of any other nation", causes the political divisions within every border. The truth is that neither side is pure enough to get the vote of Reason. Reason would be unstoppable. Reason would change the meaning of everyone's citizenships. You Are willing to become a victim in order to expose the truth, but that's a waste of time.

[@GodID7]

Actually Perry Marshall has an interesting paper. “Biology transcends the limits of computation” And he states: “Turing mathematics shows causation in biology is not chemicals - > code - > cognition but cognition - > chemicals - > code.”

[@StatedCasually]

@@GodID7 That paper doesn't show a mechanism. What is the system Denis seems to think exists for translating input from the environment into a specific mutation to meet the challenge of that environment. We know natural selection does this through trial and error over multiple generations, but Denis seems to think there's a more direct way.

[@xlntnrg]

Bruce Lipton proved experimentally many years ago that the cells react intelligently to the environment and turn the appropriate genes on and off in order to adapt the organism to it. In other words, intelligence controls adaptation rather than random mutations and selection, which makes it much faster. Observations in nature seems to support this idea - google "Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island" for an example.

[@silentbullet2023]

A marvelous debate between Topological thinking and Population thinking.

[@warrenbond32]

Very interesting, Does anyone here agree Dennis looks like the iconic 1st Doctor Who played by the brilliant William Hartnell? 😂❤

[@warrenbond32]

@fartpooboxohyeah8611 lol 😆

[@briananderson2675]

He does. that was the first one then the pissed guy from the fast show.very very drunk at the time

[@grahamforster4070]

Yes. I hope he does not die but regenerates instead when the time comes.

[@ElJaf17]

I think our host here, Güneş Taylor, had the best time of her life here :D

[@ShomeAvi]

She looks cute and gorgeous and that dress is nice.

[@isatousarr7044]

The relationship between genes and organisms is a dynamic interplay rather than a one-way control. While genes provide the instructions for an organism's development and functioning, organisms also influence the expression of these genes through various environmental and behavioral interactions. Considering this reciprocal relationship, how can we better understand the balance between genetic influence and environmental factors in shaping behavior and development, and what does this mean for our approach to studying evolution and adaptation?

[@cameroncameron2826]

Good points. Dawkins is such a fraud.

[@kipwonder2233]

This was completely fascinating 👏👏👏

[@katiehorneshaw995]

Yep. Men have been getting away with spouting BS for thousands of years simply by saying it in a haughty self righteous tone.

[@iguanarapido2552]

Where is the debate? All these info from both parties are correct, we just still missing a big slice of the pie We need to continue researching

[@AndersLundberg-v9b]

It’s all very interesting but in the end I’m still going to bed, so good night ya all good people 😊

[@wex2808]

[@bj6515]

Are you going to attempt replication and has your significant other agreed to this experiment?

[@kwamecharles6037]

@@bj6515😂

[@cameroncameron2826]

Night Night. Don't let sociopathic dreams ala dawkins concerning his cloned human race bite.

[@quasarsupernova9643]

Is this not an old recording?

[@Airehcaz]

Yeah I think this is *several* years old now. Like 2015ish?

[@WerewolfofEpicness]

@@Airehcaz didnt they mention covid

[@ListenToMcMuck]

13:46 ​@@Airehcaz

[@BanjoPixelSnack]

Not that old. Noble mentions coronavirus about five minutes in.

[@beerman204]

Wrong of KZbin not to require date of production stamps... They refuse to do that..

[@DavidRose-m8s]

Stress capable of changing cell methylation will not be manifested as a single signal so I hope to find some follow up detail. Thank you Denis, Richard, and KZbin.

[@TCPLab]

There is no debate here, both are speaking about different things. It is like they are not listening to each other.

[@512Squared]

If you know the context of the debate, you'd disagree. The issue is what serves as the unit of selection.

[@TCPLab]

​@@512Squared Yeah, I guess I need to watch the whole debate.

[@LPCLASSICAL]

Noble's ideas have very little support. That does not mean he is wrong but we will have to wait and see if they gain any traction anywhere that matters.

[@Why_U_Geh]

same with dawkins and darwins

[@Why_U_Geh]

@@MountCydonia doest mean its scientific.

[@Why_U_Geh]

@@MountCydonia not in its entirety. Parts of it are proven and true.

[@PC-vp2cg]

@@MountCydonia This is not true I'm afraid. System biology is on the rise for several decades now. It always depends on what you mean by darwinian Evolution. If you talk about mutation being the primary force of evolution then this is heavily contested since the 60s.

[@yavadkamal4349]

Statistically, évolution by sélection is impossible 😮

[@chrisc9755]

Maybe I'm missing something that Dennis Noble covers in the full discussion, but Dawkins wrote in the Selfish Gene that an organism's behaviour and environment can lead to the switching on and off of gene expression and so change the path of its offsprings' evolution

[@justcrap3703]

And no evidence of that whatsoever but you "strictly evidence-based" people believe anything that conforms to your beliefs.

[@NoahZeus]

Denis was referring to the cells ability to replicate, specifically when Dawkins mentioned inserting your genetic code into a futuristic sequencer (hypothetically 10,000 years from now), which then, would be able to generate an exact copy of the (human) life from which the genetic code was taken from (behavior, memes, or anything like that was not necessarily the topic here). The problem is that it can be hard to imagine how you can get past the DNA polymerase ability to proofread the nucleotides during transcription with such pin point accuracy, if this isn't done correctly/perfectly how could you even think to create a 1:1 replica. While, it may be easy to say "Well in the future we will have an answer," but in practice (with todays tech) the likely hood something could replicate that process virtually 1:1 without any errors seems highly unlikely, bordering on imaginative. Worst case scenario, with the amount of potential errors that could result, it does not even seem likely that it would create something can that sustain life properly, let alone thrive (needs a living cell)...but...I am not one to bet against technology though, so 10,000 years from now, there might be a retro amusement park with exact replicas of us roaming around having a good time.

[@jiimmyyy]

​@@justcrap3703 back that up. Thank you.

[@alanclw6024]

@jiimmyyy They do not have to back their claim up as they are saying there is no evidence, it is impossible for him to show that there is no evidence. It is up to you to show that he is wrong by showing him the "evidence".

[@tobycurtis988]

@@justcrap3703 You’re saying that epigenetics doesn’t exist or that you cannot change the genetics of offspring through epigenetics?

[@rajmathew6220]

It's fun to follow this conversation when you already know the science behind it so well

[@tomsunhaus6475]

I don't self-replicate because i hear it can make you go blind. I know I have the unselfish gene because I am very kind to my cats. If someone wants to replicate me, I would consider it unethical. They mention Schrödinger, but he had terrible ideas about cats, who obviously did not have an unselfish gene. edit: spelling

[@Silly.Old.Sisyphus]

thank god you dont self replicate, because one pointless punt is already too many

[@macysondheim]

@@11235butself replicate this 🖕

[@SmileyEmoji42]

Nobody (intelligent) thinks that people are self replicators. It's the genes that are replicated. I think they got a bit confused with anlogies at one point because Dawkins definitely does NOT believe that you can clonme a person from their DNA. A close physical and psychological match certainly but much less alike than identical twins because the environment of the clone growing up would be radicaly different. Watch The Boys from Brazil - A great movie.

[@tomsunhaus6475]

You are right, they discussing metaphorically. I believe Dawkins is philosopher.-scientist I was trying to make a joke. To clone oneself is well past my means. @@SmileyEmoji42

[@motina10]

Why have you applied a negative judgment to the word selfish that does not align with the book. Please actually read the book.

[@reigninblood123]

what exactly is the issue they disagree on?

[@seanrowshandel1680]

Noble is saying that "being A Good Boy has good effects on your genes". I LIKE him, and always kind of thought that The Selfish Gene was inaccurate and didn't really EXPLAIN that it was a manifesto of rebellion against the scientists. (Obviously, manners are what have been keeping us alive because they are the most basic level of social awareness, through which evolution takes place. Writing books about science is for Dedicated Scientists to do, rather than Any Weirdo who has gained access to a keyboard) I need people like Noble because the others are very dangerous extremists who do not submit to Reason (because they are publicly implying that they specifically don't believe in Reason, as per their choice which they've already made). Never care about whistleblowers. Let's be honest: they simply show up in the news when "we" are being demonstrated why whistleblowing, as a concept, has no place in society (or even reality). "Leaking info" has no meaning because nobody can come up with such an idea without there being something very, very wrong about the way that he was raised. Parenting is, in fact, Specifically NOT A RELIGION. So, if your manager is telling you to keep him up to date, he might be "on a different side than you". This paranoia, along with the adage, "Better to be a nobody in my nation than A King of any other nation", causes the political divisions within every border. The truth is that neither side is pure enough to get the vote of Reason. Reason would be unstoppable. Reason would change the meaning of everyone's citizenships. You Are willing to become a victim in order to expose the truth, but that's a waste of time.

[@thefigmaster3519]

Bro

[@domestinger8805]

​​@@seanrowshandel1680 the author of the book is meaningless if the book is well written and, of course, true.

[@mfkent5201]

@@seanrowshandel1680 where the heck did the whistleblower part come from ? Parents actually do still teach their worldview to their kids, whether they realize it or not. Any worldview. Are people denying reason or the antithesis to reason? Often they look the same but there can only be one truth of the matter? You understand?

[@motina10]

@@seanrowshandel1680 Sounds like you didn't read the selfish gene.

[@karlbarlow8040]

This is the kind of debate that is far too rare. Both sides use facts and logic and so neither can be totally wrong.

[@zachkent2575]

Is it just me or is it impossible to read the phrase "facts and logic" in a voice other than Ben Shapiro's

[@idcharles3739]

"facts" is a big problem. When is a fact? If it's something coming from an experiment involving statistics, maybe not necessarily a fact. Logic is another problem

[@karlbarlow8040]

@zachkent2575 that's what I was going for.

[@Drew-de7ey]

Thsi kind of debate is not so rare. It's just that most of it isn't political and isn't televised.

[@karlbarlow8040]

@@Drew-de7ey I need to get out more.

[@manaliveaussie]

wow Denis Noble brilliant explanation of the complexity of Living Proteins chemicals communication to change DNA

[@MemoAkten]

This was the most fascinating, insightful, and delightful discussion on whether the chicken or the egg came first.

[@Geordie504]

I’m an ovist. Fight me!

[@rociolevito]

And still neither has a clue!!

[@cameroncameron2826]

Thats what new atheism is good at. Causing humanity to fall into apathy about the codes of self destruction new atheism designs for the globalist cabalists. They are no anti religious movement as the thought crime models leading to the downfall of christianity, rapidly followed by the installation of a separate major abrahamic religion has proven. New Atheism simply helped create the conditions so that the religious tool of control was changed! The thought crime used against christianity are now circulating in a re-purposed form and interrogating the general population. With new atheism actually being a social engineering lab that sells wares the the globalists, it little wonder they think its ok to re-model the codes of humanity itself for exploitation via cloning is it ?

[@marcusdavey9747]

Dawkins is well aware that phenotype is necessary for genes to both replicate themselves, and to express themselves as phenotype. However, the success of DNA recombination (injecting the DNA from one vehicle into another, and having the original gene express itself) shows that the DNA works “on its own”, in the sense that it conveys information about its phenotype, that is independent of whatever vehicle it’s a part of. As long as the vehicle works at all, the DNA does what it does. I think Noble knows that too, so is his argument just that phenotype is more important than some people think? That’s probably true.

[@512Squared]

The argument has centered on what is the unit of selection. Dawkins' reductionism to the genetic material as the unit is what irks many biologists and it's seen as mistaken, since genetic material cannot function without the phenotype. And it's the phenotype that lives and dies. But Dawkins thinks that because the gene is carrying the variation that this must be the unit of selection, but the variation may not itself in isolation be conferring competitive advantage. There are other issues with Dawkins' theory, like the interdependence of gene function and also the arbitrary quantity of nucleotides constituting a gene, making it a purely abstract concept and useful delimiter rather than an actual unit in itself, but that's the main one.

[@marcusdavey9747]

Phenotype is what faces up to nature, and may survive, while the continuing presence of the gene that caused that phenotype, in later generations, is how we measure that selection. (Of course, the workings of DNA itself are subject to material challenges, which brings up epigenetics, which switches the POV and gets Dawkins bristling.) The conventional view, pre-“Selfish Gene”, saw organisms as the living units, that use DNA to replicate themselves. Dawkins’ hot take, well argued over several books, is we should see it the other way: Genes are the essential existence, that produce and use phenotype to stay safe in time, while they replicate themselves in the background. That shift in perspective was clever and true. Still, you can go back and forth with these POVs, they shouldn’t distract us from the fact that material nature is what’s real, not our philosophy about it. The meme: “DNA is life, everything else is just details” is dumb. This seems like something only two old men would argue about! Dawkins likes to get into it with everybody, I do wonder how hard he takes his philosophy.

[@MrLuvbizwar]

Exactly, the vehicle is irrelevant. Phenomes gonna phenome

[@oystercatcher943]

Both are ‘right’ in different ways. Dawkins in The Extended Phenotype considered the environment too but it all was driven by the gene. I think Dawkins takes reductionism a little too far because we understand little by just focusing on genes. The interaction between genes and phenotype is complex in almost all cases. Perhaps it’s like computer programming by changing single bits. You can do it and that is essentially everything there is but it’s not very effective

[@512Squared]

@@marcusdavey9747 except there is no evidence to back Dawkins very laboured effort to make genes the singular unit of selection. It's a bit like claiming cars are only a means for the carburettor to suck on fuel and not a brand to get from A to B. Genes cannot be in competition with other genes because they rely on mutual survival of the organism. It's just a nonsense argument - a spin on the facts, but not really an explanation.

[@HohenheimPU]

Sadly, the simple naming of this as the "Selfless Gene" would have helped gain more of an audience.

[@timburdsey]

I know. Such a short-sighted missed opportunity!

[@timothyharris4708]

It would also have avoided Dawkins's thesis being abused by right-wing libertarians for their own cynical ends -- such as William Rees-Mogg (the execrable Jacob's dad) and James Dale Davidson in their book 'The Sovereign Individual'. I suspect, however, that Dawkins chose that title because it sounded it sounded nicely 'hard-headed' and therefore 'scientific' and would, he supposed, be more attractive to the many readers who like big, brutal ideas than, say, 'The Generous Gene'. And, unfortunately, I think his supposition was correct: such ideas and titles do attract readers. I recommend 'Killer Apes, Naked Apes, and Just Plain Nasty People: The Misuse and Abuse of Science in Political Discourse', by Richard J. Perry; John Hopkins University Press

[@emilsadykhov123]

Except selfless and unselfish are not synonyms

[@HohenheimPU]

@@emilsadykhov123 umm... yes they are.

[@andreeaalexandru7811]

​@@timothyharris4708those hard headed titles will attract readers in the future when life might get harder, but in 2024, I have no clue where have you heard that. I am sure that nobody in your academic circles. You just presume people would because, you know, people are evil. Well, other people. Is a simple case of Neo Marxism getting to you. It happens often.

[@JugglinJellyTake01]

What's not covered here is how enzymes repair the DNA. They would need to know which side of the double helix is correct and which side incorrect. I thought the Ca2+ messenger discussed was going to cover that. The only way I can see repair working is by a 1 to many comparison with other cells. That would mean a tubulin connection to the cell membrane and a neighbouring cell across membranes or via channels.

[@carlosgaspar8447]

perhaps there is a role for viruses to play.

[@JugglinJellyTake01]

@Daniel_Hanrahan right , that makes sense so need for comparison with other cells.

[@Humanity101-zp4sq]

Every cell has a nucleic acid copy book.

[@carlosgaspar8447]

@@Humanity101-zp4sq except for mature red blood cells and finger nails and such.

[@Isaac1349]

Newly synthesised strands have different methylation patterns which helps distinguish errors during replication for a while I think. But yeah not sure otherwise, I guess repair proteins often don't repair correctly - thymine dimers for example. If there's a break, then there is always the possibility of NHEJ but that's quite disruptive (frameshifts/indels)

[@kensmith8152]

If you’ve got a proof reader in the cell, then how do you get any mutations past it to form something different?

[@liiightoriginal9949]

Because mistakes get through, or do you not believe mutations, cancer etc are real?

[@kensmith8152]

@@liiightoriginal9949: what we know that in macro evolution, most mutations are detrimental to the organism. If a fruit fly gets a second pair of wings it loses efficiency, not gains. Just like any computer program, a corruption of the code degrades function, not improves it.

[@otokwulajeremiah4134]

Richard is a man of immense faith and miracles. His confidence in the ability of the DNA to do stuff is beyond empirical

[@BrendanSmith-vy4he]

Thanks Jeremiah you made me giggle so much , Dawkins faith in his own fairy tales , god bless u my brother

[@someonenotnoone]

What faith does he have?

[@darkoz1692]

Do tell us what you know that Dawkins doesn't.

[@demonridera]

If you are a sum total of defined processes and a dynamic environment then you can't be replicated. The moment in time that existed during your inception is unique and a permanent part of you

[@XShollaj]

A noble discussion

[@JamaicaWhiteMan]

Watching this the day after the debate. One thing is clear - some people age better than others.

[@rodriguezelfeliz4623]

13:45 Wait what? Actual change in the DNA sequence? That would be huge. Why haven't we all heard about that. I thought that what goes on in the cell could only change gene expression, not the sequence

[@TaniaSaucy]

And why did you think that "what goes on in the cell could only change gene expression, not the sequence"?

[@seanrowshandel1680]

Noble is saying that "being A Good Boy has good effects on your genes". I LIKE him, and always kind of thought that The Selfish Gene was inaccurate and didn't really EXPLAIN that it was a manifesto of rebellion against the scientists. (Obviously, manners are what have been keeping us alive because they are the most basic level of social awareness, through which evolution takes place. Writing books about science is for Dedicated Scientists to do, rather than Any Weirdo who has gained access to a keyboard) I need people like Noble because the others are very dangerous extremists who do not submit to Reason (because they are publicly implying that they specifically don't believe in Reason, as per their choice which they've already made). Never care about whistleblowers. Let's be honest: they simply show up in the news when "we" are being demonstrated why whistleblowing, as a concept, has no place in society (or even reality). "Leaking info" has no meaning because nobody can come up with such an idea without there being something very, very wrong about the way that he was raised. Parenting is, in fact, Specifically NOT A RELIGION. So, if your manager is telling you to keep him up to date, he might be "on a different side than you". This paranoia, along with the adage, "Better to be a nobody in my nation than A King of any other nation", causes the political divisions within every border. The truth is that neither side is pure enough to get the vote of Reason. Reason would be unstoppable. Reason would change the meaning of everyone's citizenships. You Are willing to become a victim in order to expose the truth, but that's a waste of time.

[@fixxa6455]

So its not sure how changes in cells actually results in changed genes and dna. Its proven that the surface has impact on cells though. The theory is not complete without proving how this changes DNA.

[@TheRABIDdude]

Yes you are correct that the traditional view is animal cells never (intentionally) change the DNA sequence in their genome. I have a masters degree in cell biology and I've never heard of that happening. Whatever research Noble is describing must be very new. He seems to be suggesting that there is a seen but unknown method by which cells can sense environmental stimuli and use that to alter the DNA sequence in their genome, mediated on some level by calcium signalling and transport along microtubules. I was really quite annoyed that Noble made this huge claim about cells changing their DNA sequence in response to stimuli, researched by two of his students, and then spent 3 minutes describing something completely irrelevant (how transport of messenger proteins occurs). The video ends at the precise moment it was about to get interesting. I might go and watch the full version because I want to know now.

[@0zyris]

@@TheRABIDdude Yes, this. Nothing can happen inside the cell without the transfer of information through chemicals and their electric potentials. Unless one is selling the spiritual "add-on" side of things. At which point I duck out of the discussion. Firstly, the potential for "intended" change would already need to be part of the DNA strand as well as the structure of the cell and its constituent molecules. As far as I am aware, the cell already has mechanisms for transferring types of information from the surface of the cell to the DNA, in order to manage the expression of sequences and the suppression of others, in order for the cell to produce the proteins, enzymes and other outputs it needs to as part of it's function within its tissue context. For example, it might need to secrete a particular hormone in response to the varying presence of some agent outside the cell. Traditionally we understand that base changes do take place through replication errors that are not picked up by the reparase mechanisms that continuously "proofread" the strands. Similarly with non-fatal errors caused by irradiation or chemical action. Most non-fatal error repairs are possible because of the "mirror image" nature of the strands. But to have base changes that seem to be the result of "intentionality" in response to information coming from outside the cell rather than by "accident" is suggesting that there is a degree of "programming" somewhere within the "code" whereby the "cell brain" can "know" what function the cell needs to be coded to perform that it currently doesn't. It would imply that the cell would even have some sort of "knowledge" that there is something outside the cell that it needs to adapt to. Where such information would be stored and how it might possibly be activated and expressed when needed would have to be identified. Are there structures that might be candidates for such a process? I would like to see what evidence there is for this actually taking place that cannot be explained by the normal trial and error model of cell operation. It starts to sound a little far fetched to me.

[@Ernieshaus]

I'm still on the fence about orgs and genes, chickens and eggs, but I'm fairly comfortable believing that a replica can come close to but not fully be an exact replica of the original, unless they were somehow spawned simultaneously, in the same instant.

[@watchman2866]

Where's the full discussion?

[@RadicalCaveman]

There's a link in the description that begins "Watch the full debate at..."

[@watchman2866]

@NuisanceMan Thanks, I couldn't see it on my smartphone format.

[@Ryuk-apples]

Fully agree. I always couldnt understand the following view: a self replicating RNA started the whole thing, or saying that "THAT" RNA was replicated first in crystals. I thought an RNA cannot possibly work alone to form a cell, how would it correct itself...the minimal gene projects have shown that youd need at least 100k base pairs making 200 genes (extremely conservative number) to make a possibly living cell, making sure that all living conditions are optimal.

[@richarddeese1087]

Does anyone know who's (more) correct? I'm not worthy. tavi.

[@rigelb9025]

I'm sure someone does, but I don't. But off the cuff, I'd side more with Mr. D on this one.

[@kingflockthewarrior202]

They both can be wrong. I see no confidence. 😅 just throwing ideas and elaborating.

[@StephenRichmond89]

From the video provided, it is genuinely impossible to derive what Noble is disagreeing on. Contextually, it seems like it implies that he's saying the genes are not "selfish" but within this video he doesn't say anything that connects to, or has baring on, what Dawkins means by the word selfish. It's a really odd clip tbh because I watched the whole thing waiting for the reveal and there's just nothing here. It's very odd.

[@richarddeese1087]

@@StephenRichmond89 So it's not just me. Good. tavi.

[@rigelb9025]

@@StephenRichmond89 Yeah, I mean, I'm no expert on this topic, but this Noble guy (which I'd never heard of before) seemed to be going off on a tangent that didn't really have much to do with at least what I understand about Richard's basic argument.

[@ultrasoft5555]

Why Denis doesn't cite relevant examples? What does he mean, epigenetics, chromatin regulation, RNA and protein level inheritance by the egg? He cites the error control in DNA replication and cellular signalling. These are actually not relevant in this question. But using the three examples I mentioned, one could argue in support of Denis.

[@chaski315]

Fascinating! ❤

[@callmeishmael3031]

And how is this all put into place?

[@ianactually]

Perhaps just me but I immediately find the need to critically examine any argument that resorts to metaphor at the outset: 'almost like a crystal'. Schrödinger's work "What is Life" is hugely insightful and thought-provoking but predates the discovery of DNA and was of course written by a physicist. The metaphor is outdated, Almost Like A Whale.

[@rigelb9025]

I'd say almost more like a cat in a box. (or was it??)

[@ianactually]

@@rigelb9025 Indeed! Almost Like a Whale is the title of a book by the evolutionary biologist Steve Jones that closely follows the format of Origin of Species but in a modern context. A good read :)

[@rigelb9025]

@@ianactually Neat

[@kofipapa2886]

You are biased. You did not follow the argument at all.

[@ianactually]

@@kofipapa2886Rather than directing an ad hominem accusation at me personally, why not elaborate on precisely which part of my statement is biased and why, and what leads you to falsely believe that I didn't follow the argument?

[@philharris5848]

At the end Denis had s long explanation and we didn't hear Richard's reply. Why was that?

[@IrresponsibleGod]

To make us go to the iai site and then make it through a paywall. They "Cliffhanger" a lot of their vids like this

[@anonanon289]

Unwatchable due to KZbin advertisement. Thank you KZbin - not.

[@Sportliveonline]

use a ad blocker

[@bj6515]

Use Brave

[@0zyris]

Or an "autoskipper" like Ad Skipper

[@ElkoJohn]

Much obliged.

[@BigHandsWill]

Using data processing as a metaphor. There is data, process and an operating system. We stress the data (DNA) but ignore the process (Cell, enzyme ... ... etc). The operating system (soul/conciousness?) Is running the data through the processes. So who's Operating and who's the User. I love the metaphor and where free will fits into all this. Good chat!

[@None_of_your_business666]

9:00 except for recessive genes or genetic conditions which depend on parental imprinting

[@WhatAMagician]

I have to say I don't fully understand Denis Noble's point. He seems to be unable to engage with Dawkins' abstraction. The genes define how the cell is built in the first place. That they can change to some extent, either in their expression or their actual makeup doesn't really contradict dawkins overall view. Its somewhat orthogonal to it.

[@omp199]

As fascinating as it was to learn about how information is transmitted through a cell, the video seems to be a rather clumsily clipped excerpt that lacks the context required to understand what Prof. Noble's overall point was. I think we need to watch the full debate. It can be watched on the website of the Institute of Art and Ideas. I suppose the purpose of this excerpt was just to get us agitated enough to get off KZbin and go to their website to watch the whole thing.

[@bigbrointhesky]

Denis doesn't have much of a point. Lots of hand waving and irrelevant details. Dawkins has the logical higher ground.

[@andyshinskate]

Denis point is that a cell can not be never exactly replicated due to the fact the irreductibiliy of complexity of the cell and the nucleus. Dawkins doesn't really understand what is he talking about.

[@bigbrointhesky]

@@andyshinskateDenis has no point, just hand waving and irrelevancies. Yet, despite his incoherent ramblings, he's said nothing about "irreducible complexity," another idiotic canard. Dawkins has the higher logical ground in all this.

[@andyshinskate]

@@bigbrointhesky It's such an irony that you bring insults as arguments. Are you the one who criticizes Denis set of plausible thoughts?

[@Geordie504]

Both men are amazing geniuses. Dawkins is a better science communicator for the layman. I understood everything he said. I’m so accustomed to Dawkins debating religious people that it’s hard for me to imagine one of his interlocutors to be as brilliant as Noble. I constantly had to remind myself that Noble has actual science to back up his claims. Almost like he’s a different species from Jordan Peterson.

[@rustybolts8953]

Sorry but my brain and bio-chemistry was so overwhelmed by the absolute manifestation of quantum wave beauty of that woman in the middle who said nothing such that I must watch this video again but I think I agree mostly with Denis Noble on this.

[@treich1234]

Raise your standards

[@BerndSchmitt-Martinique]

perhaps one of the last five real SCIENTISTS - I can see Denis Nobles HONESTY in his face .

[@jollyyeholiver1599]

It's actually funny watching Dawkins brain struggling around in the dark as he tries to ignore the point and stick to his dogma

[@motina10]

You're imagining things.

[@mustaphaaglif151]

​@@motina10You're imagining that others are imagining things

[@KSR4111-u4e]

@@mustaphaaglif151 you're imagining that others imagining that others are imagining things

[@mustaphaaglif151]

@@KSR4111-u4e The point is : thinking that others are imagining is not a proof ...You need to use your mind more often it's free ...

[@KSR4111-u4e]

@@mustaphaaglif151 as if you gave a point

[@zachgrimm9062]

If you stored all of your genome in a windows excel file, could you open it on a mac in 10,000 years? I think Noble is absolutely correct that the sequence of a DNA molecule alone is insufficient to predict its survival. There is an inescapable symbiosis of genomes starting immediately with mitochondria ( in animal cells, anyway). To what degree does the genome of the mitochondria influence the successful propagation of the nuclear DNA?

[@helengrives1546]

Yes, maybe some survive dormant. In any case if a gene is switched on, then the mechanism is more flexible than selfish. Maybe selfish is rather an unfortunately chosen word and not neutral. What is good in one circumstance may not be good in another. Both survival of the fittest and selfish have a too narrow vision as it is like a veil covering the other half of necessary important aspects. Much better is the observation that doing what is best for a given circumstance. That way stability is provided, while maintaining flexibility. It looks like the invested interest is in the word selfish so much so that it becomes inflexible dogmatic. Genes can do without such naming and choose any path they like. It might also be, that genes replicate because they are chosen. In being chosen is no selfishness rather being useful to many. If genes can get stolen by bacteria, then this could mean that environments can be made friendly supportive. You can wipe out bacteria with antibiotics or be supportive of the colonies that help control the bad ones. A much more holistic way of looking at things. Things can coexist. Telling a broader view is much more likely be near the truth and reality.

[@rigelb9025]

That's good insight, but I find that your argument doesn't really disqualify the usefulness of the term 'selfish', if you take it to mean 'whatever the gene needs to do in order to survive & replicate' (and whether or not it is good or bad for others & whatever support system it needs in order to thrive). I actually thought the term (selfish) was rather well-chosen in the scope of reaching the 'average reader', if you will.

[@gratefulkm]

@gofai274 yes, so many still clinging onto debunked words, We know everything that mutates dies very quickly Evolution is an order, like ordering monkeys all over the planet to move thier tails to the front of the cortex OR all life shrink or grow by X% Its the same as an app on your phone, the Mother sends out an electromagnetic message to the Thalamus , which then rewrites the baby code in other Mothers Everything most people talk about is so out of focus , they actually believe they only have sound ears

[@tankgrief1031]

How can an organism "change its genes? What is the mechanism of inheritance?

[@correlolelo]

Mutations can be induced in reproductive cells, meaning those mutations have a potential to be passed on. Also if epigenetic alterations like methylation, which influences to what degree genes are "activated", happen in reproductive cells they might be passed along too (although there are also cellular mechanisms to undo these alterations)

[@Ihsan_khan00]

​@@correlolelo Today habitat is found much static due to resources at hand, we don't we find mutations of all different sought which otherwise could have been eliminated?

[@brianmacker1288]

Such changes cannot be the selective pressure. Thus they cannot drive evolution in any specific direction. Denis does not understand the algorithm of natural selection.

[@jay.watchman9986]

That's the big question that evolutionary biologists can never ever produce any proof of... They say mutations and natural selection, but no mutation increasing information has ever been observed. And the process supposedly takes millions of years so good luck with getting any further than that.

[@cheweperro]

Epigenetics

[@skyemac8]

Genes are one thing, memory of function is another.

[@hosoiarchives4858]

Genes only code for protein, if that

[@ronlipsius]

@@hosoiarchives4858 They do much more... then culture codes, well, a fair amount.

[@zack_120]

Regardless the content herein, the mere frank debating/critique format, instead of the common monolog talks or 'politically cirrect' discussions, makes this video distinctly valuable for advancing sci 👍👍👍

[@pixelpoet]

I think it’s amazing how many experts are watching this.

[@mad-official]

😂

[@rigelb9025]

And how few are commenting.

[@ianhobbs4984]

So how does Natural Selection deal with Irreducible Complexity which goes totally against Darwin's Slow and Small progression, Whereas Irreducible Complexity requires all parts to be there to work such as the Hip Joint composed of two separate parts the Ball and Socket which natural selection would not be able to select only 1 part of this 2 part structure as it could see no use for it whereas Irreducible Complexity is so much more Intellectually Satisfying than a Blind Theory with no Insight?

[@KanonenBengan]

I don't really know much. But I know irreducible complexity isn't right, it's just used by those that don't understand how evolution works.

[@JanPBtest]

1:09 Because, Richard, you ignore quantum mechanics. This is a _very_ common failing. People who believe that human brain is a computer, for example, make the same mistake: they assume the 18th-century physics (aka. classical mechanics and, later, classical electrodynamics) are enough to model those processes. Yet in real life, to model even the _simplest_ configurations, like only a single pair of elementary particles (an electron and a muon, say) already requires the full strength of quantum electrodynamics. Biologists (and computer scientists) are just so charmingly naïve about all this.

[@TheGreentomato123]

I agree that quantum mechanics exists and is influencing the world in various ways. But from what I understand, biological systems are more or less "immune" against it. For example for something to happen in any cell in your body the cell have to get to a minimum threshold value before the cell fires a signal. Quantum mechanics are random and can therefore not get big enough to influence a cell because all the small quantum mecanistic randomness will cancel each other out or be too small to matter. That's the explanasion I have heard for why quantum mechanics doesn't matter in biological systems. But I am not too knowledgable in this field to say for certain if this is the case. I want to hear counter arguments if anyone got something :)

[@Sammysapphira]

You appear to be ignoring the concept of identical twins physically existing in our world. They are identical down to their smallest details. How do you explain this despite your alleged quantum strangeness?

[@JanPBtest]

@@Sammysapphira Their consciousness and thoughts are not identical.

[@LadyNagantsArmpit]

@@JanPBtest Their thoughts are not 100% similar because they had different life experiences, even if their genome is 100% similar. Yet, twins' studies show that behavior is more similar between identical twins than unrelated people almost regardless of their life experiences.

[@JanPBtest]

@@LadyNagantsArmpit Sure but none of it implies that it's sensible to presume that a pair of electrons requires the full power of QED while human consciousness just _happens_ to be a result of a 17-th and 19th-century physics model. This is just to silly for words as far as I can tell. My guess is that most computer scientists and biologists' physics education ended on (at best) classical electricity and magnetism, and they are simply completely unaware of the modern physics. I'll give you just _one_ example which will show how odd our world really is. It will take a minute, so bear with me. Let's say that there is a pile of bombs that we need to examine to make sure they work. The trigger that detonates such bomb is so delicate that even a single photon of light bouncing off will explode the bomb. And apparently some of the triggers are damaged (jammed) so those bomb won't work. And your task is to set aside only the bombs that will be guaranteed to work (if triggered). You don't have to be perfect, you are allowed to accidentally detonate and thus waste bombs but at the end of the day you are supposed to produce a neat pile of bombs that are guaranteed to work. Now a moment's thought will tell you that this task is perfectly impossible in classical mechanics. Because the only way to see if the trigger is jammed is to try to wiggle it which will of course destroy the bomb as one cannot wiggle it by "less than a quantum". Nevertheless, it is an interesting fact that this task _is_ possible to perform using quantum phenomena. This was noted for the first time in 1993 and has been confirmed experimentally (without using bombs, of course! The bombs scenario only makes this problem very "macroscopically visible", since many people assume quantum phenomena are too small to matter in "real life"). So this is the real world, a world in which "interaction-free measurement" is possible. But AI and biology ignore all that completely. And what I described above is the tip of an iceberg. In more recent years there was a Kochen-Specker paradox which in part implies that certain measured quantities _cannot exist_ before the measurement is made. Then there is the Conway-Kochen "free will theorem" which says that IF we assume that the (human) experimenter performing a certain experiment on a certain elementary particle _has free will,_ THEN that particle itself must necessarily possess _free will in the same sense_ (by "action due to free will" Conway and Kochen mean something not causally connected to any event in the experimenter's (or the particle's) past light cone). Again, this is all a very quick stratospheric view. But ignoring all this makes as much sense as would be ignoring classical mechanics when building a bridge.

[@janklaas6885]

📍9:55

[@JosephMatino]

Some day in the future we will come back to this interview and agree Denis Noble is indeed on the correct roadmap as how we mistook Enstein's theories at first....,when i try to figure out what is "God" I have always comeup with .....There must be naturality in all this....

[@aramalluninja]

It is a great honor to hear such brilliant minds.

[@paulmartin3682]

I like watching stuff like this but I just don't have a clue what they're talking about..😂

[@Force9Gale-dt4rh]

yes, like listening to grown-ups.

[@copernicus99]

If nothing else was gained from this conversation, at least the woman got credit for DNA. It's about time

[@georgesos]

Trying to get the audience on your side by playing "the message"... pityful attempt.

[@WayneLynch69]

Dawkins & the BBC named their 2008 documentary of Dawkins, "The Root of All Evil". That's a fun, harmless, good-humored slap at religion. BUUTTT...it would LITERALLY be prosecutable as a HATE crime in Britain if it referenced; blacks/hispanics/Jews... AND HIS CAREER WOULD BE OVER! "The Encyclopedia of War, -Vols. I-III"--'Dating to 300 BCE, there are 1,763 documented wars. Separating Islam, 61 are of religious origin.'. But those religions account for OVER half the human population; it should be 50%+. If religion is "The Root of All Evil", why do they foment war so far below their population (3.5%)?!? "The Black Book of Communism"-Harvard Univ. Press: "In 75 years communism was responsible for 100 million deaths". AVOWEDLY ATHEIST communism; the most homicidal/genocidal belief in all of history...BUT religion is. . "The Root of All Evil".. Hitler/Stalin Churchill/FDR/Tojo/Clemenceau/Wilson/Wilhelm/Lloyd George....the World Wars took 85 million lives. NONE of the principals had even a remote inspiration to go to war from religion. David Berlinski's accounting adds another 40 million to 20th century war death toll. 125 million deaths from secular/agnostic/atheistic wars; BUT RELIGION is "The Root of All Evil". Universities, institutional indigent services, the lineal ancestor of our hospital system....ALL FROM RELIGION. AWWW.... did some religiose person look upon you as unworthy??---'THEY ARE THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL' FORGET ALL THE ACTUAL EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE EXPLICITLY PROVING WHAT FILTH IS DAWKINS.... "IT'S JUST TOO WONDERFUL TO CLAIM SUPERIORITY VIS A VIS THE RELIGIOUS" " '

[@Ryan-so4xl]

who did .. what?

[@laugustam]

Aww.. he's a dawkinsian..

[@DrBustenHalter]

So it's catch 22 - you need a cellular vehicle to allow DNA to faithfully replicate with all the associated ancillary enzymes, etc. And this still doesn't even explain the origin of the information - what vectors would select beyond simple amoeba or chemical soup. The more you look at evolutionary biology the more improbable it seems. This is where they just say "time" does it.

[@liiightoriginal9949]

You do not need a cellular vehicle, and that’s not what a ‘catch 22’ means.

[@djdedan]

Isn’t proof reading enzymes coded in the dna? I’m not sure I get Denis’ point. You don’t need proof reading to have evolution, but it sure helps a ton.

[@brianmacker1288]

My 1980 copy of The Sefish Gene addresses this issue. Dawkins throughly covered the issue of faithful copying being something that Natural Selection will improve upon. Denis is bringing up moot points. Nitpicking about things that Dawkins is already aware of and has covered.

[@williamnelson4968]

Moot points? Genes are just one of many causal factors in the evolutionary process, and that by themselves they actually do not “do” anything at all.@@brianmacker1288

[@williamnelson4968]

@@brianmacker1288 Moot Points? Genes are just one of many causal factors in the evolutionary process, and that by themselves they actually do not “do” anything at all.

[@tbayley6]

​@@brianmacker1288 I don't think Noble is nitpicking. He seems to be saying there is more to the code than just the DNA. The "replicator" for the DNA is also important, and while it may be true that the DNA encodes the replicator it also seems to be true that it can't instantiate a new replicator without already having access to one. A recursive problem, or a chicken and egg situation? Now you may assume an arbitrary human cell will contain an adequate replicator for any human DNA, and such a cell will always be readily available. Alternatively you may develop the tech to create one from scratch (avoiding the chicken and egg problem) BUT note that this already implies detailed knowledge that is additional to the DNA. But also note, it may be that the replicator is unique in some subtle way to its DNA. So to recreate an organism faithfully you might also need an original cell (replicator) that is fully compatible.

[@rigelb9025]

@@demetriogirardi2094 Thank you, that's an awesome and succinct explanation for what I would instictually assume to be correct about this subject matter.

[@saimandebbarma]

The relationship between genes and organisms is often misunderstood as a one-way street, with genes dictating the traits and characteristics of an organism. However, the reality is more complex. Genes and organisms interact and influence each other in a dynamic process. For example, a gene may code for a particular protein, but the amount of that protein produced can be influenced by factors such as diet, temperature, and exposure to toxins. This is because gene expression is a complex process that involves multiple steps, from transcription to translation. Environmental factors can also affect any of these steps, leading to changes in the final product. Organisms can also change their DNA through a process called gene regulation. This involves the activation or repression of specific genes in response to environmental cues. For instance, a plant may produce more chlorophyll in response to increased sunlight, allowing it to photosynthesize more efficiently. In addition to gene regulation, organisms can also change their DNA through genetic mutations. These can occur spontaneously or as a result of environmental factors such as radiation or certain chemicals. For example, exposure to UV radiation can cause mutations in skin cells, leading to skin cancer. These mutations can result in changes to the DNA sequence, which can then be passed on to offspring. While organisms can change their DNA, they do not have direct control over their genes. The expression of genes is a complex process that is influenced by a variety of factors, including the organism's environment, its internal state, and the interactions between different genes. This means that the relationship between genes and organisms is more like a conversation than a dictatorship. Well anyways, the dynamic interaction between genes and organisms is a fascinating and complex topic. By understanding how genes and organisms influence each other, we can gain insights into the intricate mechanisms that govern life. 🙏

[@dcartier1692]

“…and Rosiland Franklin…” (3:05) - Huzzah!

[@gggggggggg-ms8lm]

Very interesting discussion

[@brianmcchesney580]

Identical twins have identical DNA, but they are far from identical.

[@Jahwobbly]

of course... because even twins don't live or develop in identical environments. An accidental bump to the left side of a pregnant woman's belly, a momentary minor blood clot during sleep that that affects homogeneity of a mother's bodily fluids, asymmetry in human female anatomy... Maybe one twin's crib gets more sunlight and vitamin D absorption during early life has a huge effect in the long-term. I can think of a million ways to explain why twins don't turn out like something stamped out by some fine-tuned, purposeful machine dreamed up by creationists.

[@darkoz1692]

The old adage that the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts rings true.

[@nivekmendez6376]

Of course, it's like buying to Identical Iphones with the same specs as well their identical but once their being use their usage is parralel I wanna say.

[@AVS17645thRCR]

Identical twins do not always have identical DNA this is not accurate DNA is passed down randomly even for twins , even for triplets there’s been studies on it !

[@vivekkaushik9508]

I love the black background. Makes it easier to focus.

[@remborembovich8649]

Instead of cutting the film, put the full version, in order to see full conversation, this videos is supportive only for one side, Nobles's, and it's show this channel is bias

[@dustynmiller2497]

Nobles know knoable

[@aladdin8623]

Modern science is biased itself because it is based on methodological naturalism.

[@remborembovich8649]

@@aladdin8623 as I see you know nothing about it

[@aladdin8623]

@@remborembovich8649 It is the other way around. But of course somebody being not aware of his limited knowledge and low skills doesn't know, that he is wrong. I don't care about you to be honest.

[@remborembovich8649]

@aladdin8623 ridiculous line of thought being lack of knowledge about me. You don't care about me, but you care about things that you think bring morale to society. You contradict to yourself.

[@jamesleon4883]

Can anyone explain this in easier terms or share a video where this is explained in simpler terms.

[@SuperJosteen]

Tldr Denis is being pedantic, but in a good way because yes you can't just make a 100% accurate clone since it's too complicated, and scientists did recently come to the conclusion that survival of the fittest and the inheritence of beneficial genes is not the only means of evolution and in fact not the main one, it's actually genetic drift a completely random process and yet to be fully understood phenomenon, which take Richard's whole selfish gene theory which proposes that a reductionist view of life by focusing purely on genetics instead of the organism as a whole into question.

[@baraskparas9559]

From life's origin the polymer that replicated by a templatimg mechanism kept evolving along with the biochemistry around it . The great importance of the archive has evolved into being and now permits speciation and stem cell specialisation and was not always so since at life's origin the archive's function was the bulk synthesis of catalysts and, being selfish, to replicate itself via a template. A new book to be published this year by Austin Macauley Publishers titled From Chemistry to Life on Earth spells it all out . Noble's quoting of experiments that he was involved in as the solution and winning argument is a cardinal sin, a much broader reference needs to be quoted. Hormonal or chemical signals to the nucleus usually make their mark by affecting transcription factors that work on promoter regions of the gene. This is only one of more than 30 epigenetic modulations of gene expression.

[@Will140f]

that is a great point, not a lot of popular science on biology focuses enough on the evolution of the process of evolution itself, and the fact that the period between the very first prokaryotes and the first eukaryotes was almost as long as the period between the first eukaryotes and human beings. So about 2 billion years from a protocell to develop a nucleus and become a true cell, and another 2 billion or so to go from the earliest single cells to multicellular complex life that recognizes and understands it is made of cells, creates the internet, and discusses said evolution of cells in internet comments. We've come a long ways, folks!

[@neonchronicles]

This was truly fascinating. I’m not a scientist, but from my VERY right brain POV, I find it to be a bit of an Ouroboros issue-did the gene make the cell or did the cell invent the gene? Maybe they’re both invented by the mind? For example, what if the mind does make a gene that determines our death? Or a gene that makes us like Beyonce, resonating within us and within her at the same time? Maybe same goes for Swifties, or fans of Heavy Metal. Or spiritual folk vs atheists. Just consciousness resonating at the same frequency-enough to find harmony with some and dissonance with others. There’s so many valid expressions of life, but some always become larger than others via evolution and the passage through time.

[@nigellee9824]

Neither, God created both, and you'll probably laugh, I can't explain what God is, but science is now looking more to God, than evolution, the wheels have come off evolution...

[@neonchronicles]

@@nigellee9824 I agree “God” made it all. But I also think God IS the mind. And science also seems to be moving towards that idea.

[@JakeIsTiredd]

@@nigellee9824 This is incorrect.

[@bomnitoperro9422]

@@nigellee9824 i disagree that is a very simple and close minded if not prehistoric answer god is your brain telling you shut up and let him live in peace god is the answer to everything when you dont actually have the talent or will to find an answer

[@Mike-ny6sf]

Who's consciousness was running the show when I was two cells about to conceive?

[@chrisf5828]

The question should have been put simply: are you saying the genetic sequence in a person's sperm cells changes in adaptive ways between ages 15 and 40 in response to environment. (Not random cellular damage, adaptive change replicated in many sperm cells) If not there is no argument to be had. (Citing sperm only because it is so basic as nothing more than a bundle of genetic information. Feel free to substitute ovum.)

[@lovetownsend]

The obvious answer is yes.

[@dr.habibjan4702]

I'm glad someone like Prof. Noble challenges Dawkins and his widely touted theories directly during his lifetime😅.

[@Tarantella1924]

Dennis is so knowledgeable and very succinct, Dawkins was floundering.

[@elguapo3436]

Another one who does really flatten dawkins and humbles him down to the ground is definitely theoretical physicist Roger Penrose.

[@peterlewis-rs6db]

Noble's arguments for his holistic model are primarily focused on multicellular life. His arguments do not adequately address simpler systems such as transposable elements, viruses, and other cases where the actions or 'selfishness' of individual replicators, like genes, are more prominent. In contrast, Dawkins' model effectively accounts for both simple systems and complex multicellular life. A critical point arises at minute 28, where Noble suggests that cells have a desire to generate more mutations. This argument is fundamentally flawed. He uses the well-understood model of immunoglobulin mutagenesis in T and B cells to support his claim, but then extrapolates this mechanism to all cells. This extrapolation is unfounded and misleading. The idea that mutagenesis functions in the same manner across all cell types is not supported by current scientific understanding. Contrary to Noble's implication, Lamarckian evolution is not making a comeback.

[@nathanharvey8570]

In another video Noble references the work of the biologist James Shapiro, who observed this kind of function in bacteria colonies.

[@arlobaratono]

There's no link at the end.

[@male272]

Dutch Starvation study proves Denis absolutely correct. The environment of the 'proof reader' effects the 'content of the novel' despite the words put to the script.

[@liiightoriginal9949]

Nobody denies this, but it has nothing to do with the unit of selection being the gene, which is Dawkin’s point.

[@male272]

@@liiightoriginal9949 The unit of effect is the gene...not the cause of selection.

[@radwanabu-issa4350]

Life is a highly dynamic circular system, it doesn’t have a start or an end!

[@mostlysunny582]

So it's infinite?

[@nephastgweiz1022]

Can you support your claim with anything substantial ? Other than some spiritualism word salad

[@KallusGarnet]

So the lion king was right

[@domestinger8805]

​@@nephastgweiz1022 all evidence of phenomena with any form of longevity, e.g. DNA, galaxies, tornadoes or magnetism have spiralled circular recycling and repeating functions.

[@johncarr2333]

Denis is right on point.

[@Dr.Ian-Plect]

Elaborate.

[@joseffirmagemiyasato]

I'm so lay I am a shaggy carpet, but this is fascinating. I had no idea that cells were built like this.

[@luxliquidlumenvideoproduct5425]

Dawkins is talking about aging.. and predation.. not gene lines of an entire homologous sets of genomes in a taxa. Noble has a h-index of 93… Dawkins his h-index is zip… he is a theoretical evolutionary mouthpiece ,not even a scientist researcher per se. He writes books.

[@Justin-wj4yc]

God isn't real

[@luxliquidlumenvideoproduct5425]

@@Justin-wj4yc actually that proves eeevolution isn’t a real science… it is literally a pseudo-scientific theory that a few atheist scientists, and then misled unscientific people purport. It is debunked on a daily basis with every new discovery. .. as Noble says it is a quasi-religion, a fortress protected by dogmatists

[@masterjose8483]

@Justin-wj4yc grow up

[@knightspygaming1287]

@@masterjose8483 he is grown i think bcoz god isn't real..

[@tasmanianlord5269]

​@@knightspygaming1287 bold claim

[@raufsat8261]

The question & focus are wrong. If genome replication in the future of anyone is to be done it should only take place with certain consent. If not, that person should be left alone. I'd say punishable by law. I don't want my genome to be replicated. If someone considers to decide to know better & make decision on my behalf? No, completely and absolutely unacceptable.

[@Izquierda]

When your genome was first replicated when your parents conceived you nobody asked your consent and yet here you are. Maybe your future replica will be glad they get to exist as well!

[@SmileyEmoji42]

"My genome"? You don't own your genome. You can't - Think of the consequences for identical twins.

[@raufsat8261]

@@SmileyEmoji42 It is most definitely mine. I own it. It's not my problem if you live in an uncivilised & barbaric country.

[@realislam3838]

Is there any mathematical equation or formula which can help us to: 1- Reverse the evolution process to know the beings in the evolution chain starting from first cell till human being? 2- Getting the successive being/s for human beings. 3- Since evolution is matter of small changes during copying/ replicating process and surviving is the only criteria which determines whether these changes will end up with new successive being or not during long time of periods, is there any: A- mathematical equation able to calculate the average period of time to get the successive being for human being? B- And why we didn't see in last 200,000 years any of these new successive human being/s? Without getting answers on questions above I can say comfortably that Evolution supporters replace God role with infinite concept which they apply it for time and for number of changes..etc, time is the frame which atheists use it always to fill the gaps of God role without giving any scientific evidence!! And they risk themselves and all atheists when they claim that evolution theory is enough for us to exclude God role and stop believing in him!!

[@RonnyAndersson-q9b]

Choice is not administered by the body. It's adminitrated by the soul. There is no gene for civility, righteousness and virtues. It's a free will induced emotional reasoning. Aligned with either low or high vibrational thoughts. Fear or love.

[@robertjohn6354]

To be read in the voice of David Attenborough . Respect is paramount in this debate , if either Sensei was to draw their sword , they would have to draw blood as an act of honour , or commit Harri-Enfield , as a homage to their ancestors . ( although , if you're a young earth creationist , scrub the ancestor bit , we're talking Lucy's grandads here .)

[@vivekkaushik9508]

I find the lady moderating the debate quite elegant, graceful, and quite frankly cuuuteee. I wish all women/girls were like that. Same for men/boys as well. I wish we all can dress and behave properly; not always not all the time but at least when we're in public and especially at work.