What drives evolution | Denis Noble | Reason with Science | Darwin | Selfish genes | Richard Dawkins

[@syedalishanzaidi1]

Whether Prof Denis Noble is proved right or not, what should be applauded here is the fact that he is corageous enough to voice his thoughts in order to provoke the attention of the scientific community in this direction. Like Dawkins himself, he is a great explainer of ideas, and it is amazing how his train of thoughts never wanders, but stays true to the course. Where this kind of thinking in the field of evolutionary biology will lead in the end is difficult to predict. There is a lot going on in the processes which define or determine what life is, and how it came about to begin with. Jim Al Khalili has i think tried to draw the attention of science to what may be happening deep inside living cells, and he points to the intricacies of Quantum mechanics as perhaps having an effect in the way particles inside cells behave. Whether it is specialists in evolutionary biology, or the lay public which takes an interest in these matters, we should welcome the trends in thinking which seem to be bekoning towards as yet untravelled paths. Darwin I think would be with us all the way. And I have to say that I loved the way Jitender Kumar listened without interrupting. Full marks to him for keeping his peace, and never wavering in his attention to what the eminent Prof was saying. Many thanks to them both.

[@edmund-o2o]

Whether he' right or not '?? He IMO most certainly IS !!! What is the alternative - well Dawkins! Either that or oneself must come up with what Is the alt !!! Noble stays true to his (True) course be-CAUSE (!!) he is Reason incarnate ie of that Natural INTELlgence of which he speaks !! Get with program FFS!!! I can provide the Philosophical reason(s) (sic!!) fr Why he is Right but alas this is not the place fr that here.

[@rstevewarmorycom]

Except he is engaging in rank superstition, utterly without evidence, except of senility!!

[@matswessling6600]

@@edmund-o2oso you care shit about actual evidence? Noble is just airing wishful thinking.

[@Mousey316]

great interview. noble is very knowledgeable and articulate. i applaud the interviewer for giving him the time to develop his thoughts without interruption. well done.

[@larryparis925]

Well said.

[@gopra]

​@@larryparis925❤❤

[@patrickirwin3662]

Yes! Thank you Dr. Kumar! (I don't know if you are a PhD but I grant doctorates to those who doctor me.)

[@douglasfielder4621]

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

[@flavius3896]

A beautiful interview. A beautiful mind. Thank you.

[@archiewebster5034]

You hosted a very good interview! I appreciate your patience and great questions :) This is the first video I’ve seen of yours and I will be watching a lot more.

[@larryparis925]

Same here.

[@katherandefy]

Goodness me. I was not expecting this delightful level of detail. Lots to ponder. So much.

[@tersta1]

I didn't know of Denis Noble until today. Of course, I have known of Richard Dawkins for decades. His views are the status quo of Neo-Darwinists. I'm glad to hear Denis Noble's POV. It actually aligns better with my own observations and resultant POV. Thanks for hosting Denis Noble on your podcast

[@julianholman7379]

my own ? that's a misconception

[@tersta1]

@@julianholman7379 Feel free to explain why you think so.

[@julianholman7379]

@@tersta1 a reflexive expression of the sense, suddenly impressed by the appearance of the possessive adjective, that consciousness is only quite deceptively localized, and actually inheres in the mycelial discursive tissue - perhaps a mere quibble with words

[@tersta1]

@@julianholman7379 Yes, it is a reflexive expression on "my part" and a quibbling of words on "your part". Why do "you" waste "your time" making a commonly used self-reference the subject of attention? Surely "you" can find more interesting things to focus on than possessive adjectives. It's not a good look for "you", but to each "his own".

[@larryparis925]

Wonderful session. Mr. Kumar is well-prepared and knowledgeable, and Prof. Noble is an amazing scientific storyteller. Imagine sitting around a campfire and listening to him talk. Thank you... very, very much.

[@karlbarlow8040]

This man ranks as a genius of the standard of E O Wilson and James Lovelock. The accepted model of any branch of science can only be at the level that the average scientist can understand. This is why all genius' struggle to be accepted. Only a great interview like this can allow us mortals to glimpse the workings of such a mind. Thank you.

[@davidcolby1456]

The answer is easy and hard at the same time.The answer is everything drives evolution and a completely related and intertwined complicated way.

[@patod4]

Not yet listened to all of it. But why isn't Lamarck mentioned, after all he supported what today we call somatic inheritance, am I wrong?

[@bastiaanschouwink3562]

the weissman barrier is the same as anti neolamarckism, i believe. noble is i think a lamarckist

[@larryparis925]

Lamarck and Lamarckism is mentioned. You didn't listen far enough. It's quite interesting.

[@Spudmay]

This is a very wonderfully interesting concept. Now I have to investigate this further. It seems weird I haven't heard of this at all (I am also very very new to ingesting science).

[@brendawilliams8062]

If I had a wish list. To be able to have been so educated would have been glorious

[@alexpeikary]

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

[@phil3.146]

Good interview.

[@rustycalvera977]

what an interesting discussion this is....how beautifully put forth by denis noble.

[@MrSolonolo]

A very clever dancing around the principle question which was "what DRIVES evolution” which differs from the question "what PRECIPITATES or FACILITATES evolution". Informative and enjoyable, nonetheless. Thank you.

[@MMG-q1v]

Are you looking for a teleological explanation?

[@MrSolonolo]

@@MMG-q1v Or even a causal one. Yes.

[@MMG-q1v]

Matter and energy. Magnetism and vast amounts of time.

[@MrSolonolo]

@@MMG-q1v Which is the "driver”?

[@MMG-q1v]

@@MrSolonolo random mutation acted upon by natural selection. Please don’t give the old argument that all this senseless beauty could not have been brought about “at random.” Natural selection is relentless.

[@rs6730]

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

[@Bearthalamass]

Zealous faith...

[@mpen7873]

Great interview 👍👍

[@bertrandthebault6899]

Denys Noble is a star

[@yp77738yp77739]

Very interesting. For me the key is that this might explain the generation of novel species which, I understand as being mathematically problematic with passive mutation processes. I need to listen several more times. We mustn’t lose sight that molecular biology is a very young science.

[@derinnefes33]

Answer?

[@julianholman7379]

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

[@spadeespada9432]

👍👍👍 First time in a long time I've come across entirely new info on DNA & evolution that is coherently tied together. No childish gobbledygook, either.

[@ferrantepallas]

brilliant and fascinating presentation, thank you

[@komolkovathana8568]

05:38. DNA (DeoxyriboNucleic Acid ; Double Helix) Base-Pairs Protein, named : (1) A--T (or T --A) ; Adenine -- Thymine (2) C--G (or G--C) ; Cytocine -- Guanine

[@robertbryant4485]

I'd like to see the mathematical probability. behind C,H,O,N P atoms randomly arranging into self replicating DNA. which is more complicated than any computer we know

[@planetdog1641]

me too! Darwinism is dead.

[@matswessling6600]

the probability? probably pretty high actually.

[@robertbryant4485]

@@matswessling6600 Pretty high??.Easy to. say. but . show a ball park calculation.. like silicon atoms arranging themselves into a computer

[@matswessling6600]

@ "silicon atom areanging themselves into a computer"??? what has that to do with this?

[@robertbryant4485]

@@matswessling6600 the degree of organisation of DNA. exceeds that of silicon wafers. and yet you say that CHON atoms can arrange into DNA with high probability/.. pls show the math e.g.www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=www.cell.com/cms/10.1016/j.bpj.2023.10.024/attachment/12d97a45-7880-4bfe-9096-870b0f000943/mmc2.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj43IHyjbGKAxVn4jgGHfe-BfUQFnoECBgQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1GL4tQnXQ_iUb4vMjjFj1i

[@ericjohnson6665]

Re. Immune system "choosing" nucleotides... this sounds a lot like Michael Levin's assessment of cells: 'Life has congnition all the way down to the individual cell.' Which begs the question: how did that cell come by that "cognition", when life first started?

[@imwelshjesus]

Cos the baby jesus dun it I red it in a book that's why.

[@ericjohnson6665]

@@imwelshjesus - Not the answer I was hoping for. 😇 [It was bait for the atheists.] The being that incarnated as Jesus, Paradise Creator Son Michael of Nebadon, has a partner called the Universe Mother Spirit, and she is the one responsible for providing an allotment of mind (on a varying scale) to all life forms. And 'mind' is the source of that 'cognition'. And is the reason why 'life' cannot happen by accident.

[@matswessling6600]

@@ericjohnson6665just wishful thinking. You have no evidence for any of that.

[@ericjohnson6665]

@@matswessling6600 - You're right, I don't. I'm not a nuclear biologist. Whether Denis Noble does, I can't say. Still, it's food for thought. As for evidence of 'mind' - yes, I do have evidence for that. Plus, I have a text, written in part by Life Carriers, who tell us that's how they started life on our planet, starting around Paper 58 in the Urantia Book. They formed our first global common ancestors, which were then activated by the source of 'mind', our Universe Mother Spirit. Mind is what activates and animates matter into something we call life. That it can evolve, is very likely also evidence for mind causing it.

[@matswessling6600]

@ you actually believe that urantia clap-trap? why?

[@robertagajeenian7222]

I wonder what Darwin would have said (perhaps he even knew of this already - he wrote a book on orchids) about the very great hybridization industry with orchids. There exist cross-genera hybrids wherein 3-5 (anyway) different genera are hybridized. These hybrids (where typically hybridization produces sterile offspring) are generally fertile. The orchid hybridization process is with pollinia to stamen directly. This practice is very ancient in food plants and some farm animals, I guess, but the fact of its happening is already very interesting. I wonder if orchids are particularly labile genetically?

[@sergiosatelite467]

11:34: Immune System Selects

[@keaton718]

Humble looking home. You’d think a household name like Denis, in biologist households anyway, he’d have a grand home. In movies famous biologists are rich.

[@imwelshjesus]

​The police merely did what Christian society instructed them to do, hound homosexuals. Nothing special about your hero's treatment, all gays around the world are or have been treated abysmally and in many places even today are killed simply for being different.

[@variole9911]

Great exposé. But humans are under control template that are outside their making. Why not name that outside control?

[@ValidatingUsername]

Cells and system adaptation to homeostatic conditions trying to form barriers or connective tissue with shells and bones and such 😊

[@alsaba5203]

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

[@clivejenkins4033]

The origin of life is the big question

[@lokeshparihar7672]

21:30 julian huxley book

[@MahmoudSaatsaz]

Nice

[@hn6187]

Genes are the piano keys we play... To explore the possibilities of music ... To paraphrase Prof Noble. The science of the Metaphysics of panpsychism

[@SeyedMohammadMostafaviDialecti]

What drives evolution is the universe tends to be ORGANIC

[@FlowDeFlowDrainage]

evidence?

[@joeyrufo]

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

[@mykrahmaan3408]

Once we derive the mathematical model of the mechanism how the 3 entities (PLANTS, ANIMALS and HUMANS) could cooperate at present through our own programming of the gaseous, liquid and solid substances each individual of the latter two entities release to the surrounding (environment), all these analyses of the "origin of species" as a historic process that happened in the distant past through a process called EVOLUTION would become superfluous, as we could then use that MODEL in actual practice to influence events inside the earth that shape the weather as well as development of, and growth on, plants to suit our requirements in real time for evil free sustenance of life function, benefiting all life ~ including animals, not just humans. Reproductive appearance of beings is a displaced natural function, which can (and MUST) be rectified by us to compel the earth to deliver and sustain new beings (animals and humans) through plants only as it originally did, without involving any other being. This would be the real INDEPENDENCE, which in fact is a misnomer (a negative concept), for no being could ever be INDEPENDENT of the earth. What the word actually implies is INDEPENDENT of "other beings". So the correct (positive) word for that concept should be: EARTHDEPENDENCE. Even to leave this earth, we have no other means than to use the substances available on (and in) it.

[@ALavin-en1kr]

Without an understanding of consciousness (the hard problem) and mind, positing the elemental as causal is premature and comes up with some unlikely scenarios such as genes having a point of view. This is biological reductionism at its silliest.

[@philoso377]

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

[@komolkovathana8568]

At first, it's not just survival of the fittest.. but pure struggling to survive.. eg when water level was down by vaporizing heat from the sun, some fish came out of pool to blindly crawl out hopefully finding new (Better) pond. Many just died, very few success and survived.. and breeding. Many generations of that survival group (not only one of them passed the (many, many)tests & you can called it Practices, they became more durable more agile, more breathable in dry air, even adapted longer or stronger (hand-ike) Fins.

[@komolkovathana8568]

I only know of Macro (Outside: Overall) Evolution, which is the product of deep-down Molecular Biology (bio-chemistry) inside the Cells' nucleus... which i know Nothing about.

[@FlowDeFlowDrainage]

That is just a story. Droughts happen more often and much faster than fish breed. The likely outcome in the scenario you describe is all the fish die, the end. It only makes sense to posit slow evolution if the environment changes equally slowly.

[@tedgrant2]

The secret of life is no longer a secret. Chemistry

[@skyemac8]

Survival drives evolution.

[@clivejenkins4033]

He saying bacteria is like the borg

[@arthurwieczorek4894]

What drives evolution? Just as there are laws of nature like conservative of energy, so there are laws of nature involving conservation of structure. The structure I have in mind in regards evolution is the chemical structure DNA. Per Richard Dawkins.

[@zbuchus]

Are the laws of nature random and do they emerge from a vacuum? Is our existence just another coincidence? What a hype and pride

[@MuradBeybalaev]

Clickbait. Does not feature Richard Dawkins.

[@notanemoprog]

It does feature his ideas/memes/genes though, which are by Dawkins' own view all that matters

[@alexnewton7484]

Wonderful interview. Our environment/habits determining our evolution is the single most important piece of knowledge in the world today. The obesity epidemic, myopia epidemic, dental occlusion epidemic, and mental health epidemic are all being driven through environment and passed on to future generations via these transgenerational effects. If you aren't convinced by Noble, look up "Dias and Ressler 2014"

[@fcalin21]

It is so sad that he is old.

[@keaton718]

I still think Denis is reaching here. But that he’s got a sense of something that is actually going on. But it’s not quite what he says it is.

[@markwrede8878]

Evolution is a passive effect. It is not driven.

[@valwasilenko4282]

What drives evolution? IGNORANCE

[@thedolphin5428]

Huh? In humans, ignorance is THE OPPOSITE of evolution. Ignorance is inertiative. It is intelligence (human and natural systems) which drive the forces of inquiry, learning, development, growth towards higher and more complex order. Ignorance leads to stagnation and entropy. Just asxwe gavecevokutikn, tgere mystcexist devolution, as nang people are demonstrating daily. Some cohorts (eg, alcoholics, drug addicts, social media addicts), oe The Ignorants, are clearly developing our species backwards.

[@Bearthalamass]

​@thedolphin5428 👏 👏 👏 😅😅😊😂

[@dominiqueubersfeld2282]

I remember another brilliant biologist who also struggled with understanding genes. His name was Trofim Denisovich Lysenko. Contrary to Denis Noble, he saw himself as a materialist and a Marxist, but the final result was the same. Both Lysenko and Noble actually are Neo-Lamarckist, for different reasons.

[@gemishedinterviews]

I wonder if Mr. Noble knew my Grandpa, R. Schwyzer. He reminds me of the way he spoke to me when I was young.

[@danielgriffith8911]

hahahahahaha! Evolution is a disproven myth.

[@BenRoderick-h3h]

Lopez Frank Garcia Shirley Hernandez Brenda

[@jackymarcel4108]

Hernandez George Lee Scott Jones Matthew

[@clivejenkins4033]

You can create AI, you will never create self conscious beings, period.

[@whatabouttheearth]

Well...what is a "self conscious" being? You're not "self conscious", you were built by a mechanism. You didn't make yourself or your consciousness. We have already made living mice from skin flakes from male mice without a mother. Hypothetically, with a sufficient amount of deep biomimicry of a structure that has a mechanism that reproduces that structure, it could possibly be done. We are starting to develop biomimicry at a much faster rate, artificial biomimicked skin for skin grafts, artificial limbs, studied even on limb regeneration through studying stem cells in Axylotyl limb regeneration, etc. The technology is just getting better and better. It's only a matter of time when mimicked biotechnology will get bizarrely simmilar to the real flesh, leaf, or organ...🤷 and then how do you think it could develop from there?

[@whatabouttheearth]

Well...what is a "self conscious" being? You're not "self conscious", you were built by a mechanism. You didn't make yourself or your consciousness. We have already made living mice from skin flakes from male mice without a mother. Hypothetically, with a sufficient amount of deep biomimicry of a structure that has a mechanism that reproduces that structure, it could possibly be done. We are starting to develop biomimicry at a much faster rate, artificial biomimicked skin for skin grafts, artificial limbs, studied even on limb regeneration through studying stem cells in Axylotyl limb regeneration, etc. The technology is just getting better and better. It's only a matter of time when mimicked biotechnology will get bizarrely simmilar to the real flesh, leaf, or organ...🤷 and then how do you think it could develop from there?

[@notanemoprog]

@@whatabouttheearth You can certainly say that again

[@JungleJargon]

Imagination drives evolution along with speculation conjecture assumption assertion and irrational fantasy.

[@clivejenkins4033]

Interesting theory, going to great lengths to disprove god

[@Bearthalamass]

They have to to keep their technology ethical. It's kinda hard to say we're not sure if there's a God or not, but we're pretty sure it's OK to develope gene splicing and transition children. It doesn't work that way.

[@djelalhassan7631]

Brilliant, everything is conscious and life

[@nancymatro8029]

Noble seems to suggest that every organelle has its own DNA which is passed on to it's offspring. How this is accomplished he doesn't say. I can't find anyone else who corroborates this point of view.

[@komolkovathana8568]

Sorry, no intentionally intruding ; here's one question, nobody will EVER ask you, sire. The Reproductive (sex) Cell division of base-pairs ... called MIOSIS ; Father Cell (eg.). Mother Cell (eg.) A ----- T. T ----- A T ----- A. C ----- G G ----- C. A ----- T C ----- G. G ----- C Both Cut in Half.. and Recombined, as... ( Left to Right ). ( Left to Right ) A --x-- A. T --x-- T T --x-- G. C --x-- A G --x-- T. A --x-- C C --x-- C. G --x-- G All were WRONG and Unpair-able (!!?!!) How can any Gene-corrector work of such randomly "choose" whether you wanna keep the Left or the Right as Pivot protein, and abandon another (create a new suitable "half") to match the chosen side.? Some kids got the Father's Hair but mother 's eyes; some got Father's eyes but mother 's hairs.; Random Pivot genes 're chosen ? Then discarded another Half, yes? The recombination then just make prominent genes from either Dad or Mom only.!?!

[@BuckleGeoffrey]

Garcia William Martin David Johnson Christopher

[@wulphstein]

What drives evolution? Bad math.

[@tomato12terra]

hmmm, is Noble advocating directionality of selecting and evolution? Does not convince me

[@Iwansidi]

Me neither...I am even a little annoyed that he is running victory laps as if the case was already settled. The condescending way in which he talks about the "writer" Dawkins is actually embarrassing.

[@tomato12terra]

@@Iwansidi yes, and without providing any evidenced alternative to the self replicator as unit of selection

[@homer1273]

Clearly you 2 kids don’t understand anything about what he is talking about and should stay silent and finish school

[@vikkumar9301]

@@tomato12terra I thought he did provide a lot of evidences.

[@alexnewton7484]

He provided plenty of evidence, both here and in his debate with Dawkins. If you'd like more, look up "Dias and Ressler 2014."

[@stephenbrown9998]

White van man

[@DrMichael-T-7777]

Need to publish or perish and excuse for federal grants …

[@matthewstokes1608]

The word is GOD

[@arthurwieczorek4894]

Is there any question you can't answer with that word?

[@matthewstokes1608]

@@arthurwieczorek4894 no

[@arthurwieczorek4894]

@@matthewstokes1608 So you are saying there is no question that cannot be answered by invoking God.

[@matthewstokes1608]

@@arthurwieczorek4894 Look - God created you, all matter//space/time/light/consciousness - the fact you ARE - and then set you ‘free’ into a world of miraculous wonder with a free-will and a compass… He made your soul - your spirit is free - but you cannot escape decay which He hardwired into an inescapable process of apparent mortality in the mere material realm culminating in death. You are born in blood to the binary matter of a unique familial tree - but you will die an individual utterly alone - and as such you will be judged. All men of all ‘time’ and from all tribes will be judged by the Christ alone. Why? Because this visible material world is (at most) half the REAL picture. The purposefully invisible, spiritual realm is far more real - and you do not die. I know the body dies and rots and stinks - worm food - we all see the ‘obvious’… but it is a ruse. The reality is mind-blowing. Only Jesus Christ can set you free. Obviously I am saying there is no question that cannot be answered by God… it is not about your invoking Him - but about His invoking you. Your faith in Him is not the main concern for a man nearly as much as whether He has any faith left in you. “Fear of God is the beginning of all human wisdom.”

[@karlbarlow8040]

If you are speaking about the God of Spinoza and Einstein, then I would agree. (They both used "God" as a metaphor for the laws of nature).

[@peterkiedron8949]

Broken record. Time to retire and let the ego get some rest.

[@44point5]

You're having difficulty with information processing, I see. Maybe some gene repair will help you overcome your impediment.

[@MarkoMakela-kk7qf]

Short answer to the topic is completely nonsense! You can of course make theories what has happened before according the test and theorioes you now have, but that won't make any difference to anything. You weren't observer as these things happened, so you don't know a fuck about them. You are just guessing like all the people who deseperately after lost religious beliefs are seeking for scientific resurrection which never comes. Changing religion, no matter if it is the most common one to think or the scientific approach that is almost as unrelialble as the first one, we will face some questions that are beoynd our capabilities to comfirm. Almost all we know of all extince is mainly from the past. We don't even know what our universe right now is. We see only what it was in the past... Tell that story if you are a wittness of an car accident to the police men... yes indeed... I wasn't there but I see that this car went too fast and violited the traffic rules... possible of course, but that's all it is. You can't make theories from the end results coming back to the explanation. I know this well as in some maths you can actually do that, not all, but some. But this way too complex to use that merthod. Before anyone asks, I couple of times didn't remember the simplest way aka right formula to calculate something difficult 'cos I was overtrohwn by girls at the time... beats all of us.. but as I wasn't completely useless with maths I broke the formula to pieces and calculated every single thing separately... it is exhausting, and I don't recomen that to anyone, but especially in physics you need desperately those mathics and formulas...:)

[@MarkoMakela-kk7qf]

And now when we finally have equipments out of our planets interfierence and athmosphere and can see some things as they 'were'... It doesn't look quite what we expected? I suggest a reroll.. and a little break. From your mediavel thoughts.

[@gopalaraodasari7743]

Integrating scientific thought with cosmic consciousness whether scientists are earth bound or not is tantamount to out of world science.

[@RunnerThin]

A theological belief that there is no Creator drives the fantasy cult of evolution.

[@karlbarlow8040]

The "Creator" is still in the process of creating himself and he's using evolution to do it. When he's finished, he may start answering prayers. I know a few good church goers who got no answers and had tragic ends.

[@SpenderDebby-x6n]

Harris Jason Jackson Paul Davis Barbara

[@ChrisSargent-f5j]

Garcia Michael Martinez Kenneth Thomas Linda