Why Dawkins is wrong | Denis Noble interview

In this interview, esteemed biologist Denis Noble explains why our approach to biology is the wrong way around.
We thought that the sequencing of genetic information would unlock vast developments in medical cures for a whole host of illnesses. However, sequencing the genome alone hasn't revolutionised medicine. Denis Noble argues that we have our treatments the wrong way around. Instead, we need to recognise that genes are not on/off switches, and move beyond dualism in Biology.
Watch world-famous scientist Richard Dawkins go head-to-head with celebrated biologist Denis Noble as they debate the role of genes over the eons at iai.tv/video/the-gene-machine...
00:00 Introduction
00:26 Why does the idea of genetic determinism have such a lasting appeal?
06:13 What do you see as the fault of this gene-centric Neo-Darwinian picture?
11:22 How did Darwin's view get distorted by Neo-Darwinism?
14:18 What is the alternative to genetic determinism?
17:55 Can determinism come from the environment?
22:37 What do you make of CRISPR and human enhancement?
24:53 What is the biggest question in molecular biology at the moment?
Oxford Professor and one of the pioneers of Systems Biology, Noble developed the first viable mathematical model of the working heart in 1960.
#DenisNoble #GeneticDeterminism #NeoDarwinism
The Institute of Art and Ideas features videos and articles from cutting edge thinkers discussing the ideas that are shaping the world, from metaphysics to string theory, technology to democracy, aesthetics to genetics. Subscribe today! iai.tv/subscribe?Y...
For debates and talks: iai.tv
For articles: iai.tv/articles
For courses: iai.tv/iai-academy/courses

[@TheInstituteOfArtAndIdeas]

Watch world-famous scientist Richard Dawkins go head-to-head with celebrated biologist Denis Noble as they debate the role of genes over the eons at iai.tv/video/the-gene-machine?KZbin&+comment&

[@bengeurden1272]

Dawkins doesn't go "go head-to-head with" with this guy. What kind of superficial KZbin channel this has become...

[@welingkartr416]

Wonderful interview! Thanks a lot. I appreciate the interviewer too, who leads the conversation so logically and very well, making even a layman like me appreciate what is being discussed. I had tried reading Richard Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" years ago, but couldn't complete reading it, for I felt he placed the Gene on a pedestal. Almost made it an all-omniscient, new God hidden deep in every cell that knew its way through every challenge that evolution and nature threw at it. Denis Noble's interview brings out interesting, logical details that are far more appealing.

[@laurier3348]

Ya, but he's old

[@winifredherman4214]

@@welingkartr416 I've read all of Dawkins. The Selfish Gene was fantastic!

[@welingkartr416]

@@winifredherman4214 I know. Many people liked it-and like it to this date- and people recommended it, but somehow I found the idea of an apotheosized gene, problematic.

[@znarfranzi]

I am glad to see that there are so many comments. The clash of paradigms is important for the advance in science, as Thomas Kuhn wrote in his book on scientific revolutions. Denis Noble has put forward a contrasting and more holistic one to the currently prevailing and highly reductionistic molecular biology. In my opinion, you have to have a basic understanding of systems biology to fully grasp what Denis Noble says. He also gave a good advice to his former student to keep these ideas to himself. If, as a young scientist, you do not stick with the main paradigms of the time, you get no positive reviews and, as a consequence, no funding. Denis Noble now is in a position to do so and he merits all the attention and reflection that he can get.

[@mathiaschaves7604]

My hypothesis is that the system of peer-review have this effect of reinforcing the status quo making more difficult to disruptive work to be published due to rejection of such ideas. Other problem may be that the way we avaliate the goodnes of a scientist is heavily skewed towards those who produce more pappers and have more citations. This makes difficult to new clever minds to be heard and appreciated. However I don't have data to prove or chalenge my point.

[@upturnedblousecollar5811]

In my opinion, you're both trying to sound more intelligent than you actually are.

[@znarfranzi]

@@mathiaschaves7604 Well, Lynn Margulis admitted submitting her famous endosymbiosis paper perisitently to more than ten jounals until a sympathetic editor accepted it for publication ....

[@alexappleby8677]

It's actually quite sad that the "pressure to publish" system that has been created encourages over-skeptisism, cultish thought and gatekeeping preventing new thought.😢

[@terencefield3204]

Do not to clash your paradigms in frnt of me sonny, there are ladies present.

[@christophercousins184]

Kind of confusing for me... It's been a while, but as I recall Dawkins didn't claim that sequencing the human genome would solve all of our medical problems in his book, "The Selfish Gene." Dawkins' book is a "zoomed-out" general narrative about the complexity of genetic expression leading to speciation in the environment and, as Noble says himself, is probably the best book out there explaining NeoDarwinism. It seems to me, what we are learning about epigenetic function and environmental impacts expand on Dawkins' thesis and doesn't necessarily contradict any claims he made there... Sure there are details that are off, but the book still works as an excellent and very accessible book on evolution. Other than that, his claims are fairly reasonable (though, general), but I do feel Dawkins got "straw-manned" (I know for certain that Dawkins does not believe that our genetic make up solely determines our behavior). I have to look up the debate/discussion between these two and, hopefully, I'll be able to understand Noble's objections more clearly.

[@zah936]

Thanks

[@Paul_C]

Darwin couldn't have an 'opinion' about genetics: It wasn't known in his era. So neo-darwin is a nonsensical term😊

[@christophercousins184]

@@Paul_C Yes, he wouldn't have used the word gene but he asserted there were mechanisms governing inherited traits. But I was referring to Dawkin's book, "The Selfish Gene." I also am not a fan of the label "Neo-Darwinism," but went ahead and used it in this context as I didn't want to wade into that argument. best to you.

[@livrowland171]

Dawkins has said as humans we are not obliged to just act due to programming by our genes and can be better than that, as far as I recall. But his book was written before recent discoveries I epigenetics so it wouldn't be surprising if parts might be out of date.

[@alexappleby8677]

Reading between the lines, I think Noble's critique of Dawkins is that his ideas are routed in determinism. I think if Dawkins were to have written the Selfish Gene now, it still would have been a deterministic text, just that the mechanisms would have been more complex taking into account heritable and non-heritable epigenetics (though obviously this is just my opinion). I think what Noble is saying is that the way in which biomolecular systems employ stochastic methods means that we cannot look at the human system in a deterministic way. It is my opinion that one day we will know enough about epigenetics and the insane myriad of RNA species to apply a more deterministic view of the human system, OR at least some of the subsystems. Though I do think Noble has a point about the chaotic fluid dynamics of very complex biomolecular processes may prevent us from ever applying a deterministic view to SOME (which is where I disagree with Nobel) biological subsystems.

[@pyxxel]

I absolutely love having access to brilliant minds here on the cyberspace! Listening to Noble and other amazing minds is a real treat and a feast for a hungry mind. Thank you!

[@pyxxel]

@@Jbat-xf5pv I am totally wrinkled! In fairness I wanted to write "on the internet" but changed my mind without changing the sentence structure. Thanks for your valuable contribution to the discussion!

[@musicloverlondon6070]

Just a couple of minutes into the video and already I'm having to look up words - and that's a good thing! 😊That's part of the value of these uploads. Thank you.

[@olafshomkirtimukh9935]

How lovely it is simply to _listen_ to such old school Englishmen! One hardly ever hears English being spoken so beautifully these days. And his command of the queen of tongues is the perfect vehicle for his ideas. Truly noble, Mr. Noble.

[@yy3hh]

never thought there would be english supremacists

[@mito88]

​@@yy3hh rule brittania

[@bobtaylor170]

@@yy3hh you're just eaten up with envy.

[@batcollins3714]

Bet you voted for Brexit too 😂😂😂😂😂

[@serpentines6356]

I love listening to good spoken English too. Roger Scruton, also one of my favs. His talks on the value of beauty are so needed in this modern world. "Why Beauty Matters". So important. American actress Betty Davis was an outstanding speaker.

[@psychologicalprojectionist]

I think he misrepresents what Dawkins says. What he is saying is the genome isn't a code, I agree. I don't think Dawkins claimed it was any more than a replicator that is selected for its ability to get replicated. There is some genetic determinism, but it is not straightforward, absolute and environment plays apart. I don't think NeoDarwinism is genetic determinism. I don't think anyone imagined medical solutions were going to come out of the sky from sequencing work. I think "genetic determinism " is a strawman. I would love to know if Dawkins ever used the phrase.

[@tjejojyj]

I completely agree. Q: “What do you see as the fault of this gene-Centric new-Darwinian picture?” A: ~“it promised to cure disease but failed”. Who promised that? Did Richard Dawkins? There is an obvious paradox in having a gene that will kill the host for neo-Darwinians since it for that gene to propagate it needs the host to survive. My understanding of the neo-Darwinian position is that there are many genes and they can have competing effects on behaviour, the extended genotype. Whether a behaviour is “advantageous” depends on the history of the organism and the context of the action.

[@yoso585]

Yeah. At the base, it’s all the same. Very complex in the end as it is with absolutely everything. The discoveries never end.

[@brechtkuppens]

Yes, he is over-selling some new additions to scientific knowledge, as if they revolutionize the entire discipline. Never have I read any advocacy of strict genetic determinism from Dawkins, he is strawmanning him.

[@martinwilliams9866]

Genetics determines potentiality, enviroment determines actualization!

[@psychologicalprojectionist]

@Martin Williams and junk DNA determines nothing. Also the environment includes the cell and its contents, which is partially determined by genes.

[@fraserwebster8761]

I worked with Professor Noble about 15 years ago as an intern on one of his video production projects. A really interesting man, someone who when he speaks, a room listens. Glad to see he's still going strong and well. If you're reading this (I highly doubt that you are) I hope you're well, and thank you for teaching me so much!

[@AndrewWilsonStooshie]

I don't think Dawkins has ever suggested behaviour is determined by genes alone.

[@svenhanson398]

Have you read the book. I have, he does according to my understanding of it. I see it as worse, humans are dismissed, its genes need to reproduce itself that matter, nothing else. And how he express it he give the genes an aim and that gives genes agency. That is having purpose, to reproduce itself. And to me that's falling into a form of modern animism. Its even in the title, The selfish gene, as if its a choice by genes to be altruistic or selfish and it chooses selfishness.

[@celorfiwyn8193]

Noble might very well be a good physiologist, but his ideas about evolutionary biology are simply not grounded in facts. He has repeatedly made statements that were either just somewhat wrong or absurdly erroneous about it.

[@svenhanson398]

@@celorfiwyn8193 Yes, I do not know Noble and have just stepped by and found it interesting enough to stay a while. So my view is based on that and foremost my encounter with Dawkings text in the Seflish gene years ago. So all I can say is Dawkins just doesn't know what he is talking about when he goes so far in his extreme reductionism to postulate that humans are just another way for genes to make another step in their march towards the future in their attempt to survive. And on top of it give Genes agency. That is there was a choice to be made and selfishness was it, for the genes. Its plain stupid and I cannot now that years has passed by see anything but the rubbish I found in this more than 30 years back.

[@ianmiell]

Not only that, the end of the Selfish Gene marvels at our ability to move beyond our genetic destiny.

[@svenhanson398]

@@ianmiell In the sense of manipulation you mean. Well, the whole thing with this is pretty dangerous to me, humans tinkering with is not really well understood yet, and many times for the narrow reason of profit, is just madness. Which we humans are very good at displaying too often for comfort.

[@folee_edge]

I love this channel. It totally challenges me to review my assumptions without degrading logical thought or scientific methodology. THANK YOU.

[@martinlawrence8427]

What a treat to listen to Professor Noble!

[@OnceTheyNamedMeiWasnt]

One day you too will be a professor and we will say the same about you.

[@geo24793]

Absolutely amazing and illuminating interview! Really well informed and well put questions from the interviewer and obvious genius in the responses - 10/10

[@Conserpov]

I don't find misrepresenting Dawkins amazing at all, let alone well informed or illuminating.

[@BearGryllsSpoofs]

⁠@@ConserpovI’m just slowly getting in this gentleman and Dawkins. What is particularly misrepresenting within this video?

[@Conserpov]

@@BearGryllsSpoofs Noble, apparently, didn't even read Dawkins' books past the title. Noble straw-mans Dawkins and then just repeats Dawkins' own points as his "rebuttal". "Dawkins rejects epigenetics", "Dawkins is a genetic determinist/reductionist" are just most ludicrous examples.

[@kammonkam4905]

​@@Conserpoviai likes to give a platform to pseudo intellectuals good at only serving word salad. It is easy to win accolades by being verbose.

[@alienspotter422]

A joy to listen to this noble man. Thank you.

[@induchopra3014]

I like his openness. His open mind. Thats amazing. A scientist with open mind is rarei

[@jasontoddman7265]

Pun unintended?

[@DiscipleOfHeavyMeta1]

Very dialectical. This is the kind of talk we need more often. These reality checks.

[@vernonhedge4530]

I found it botnobaglasmic.

[@jikkh2x]

Go back to mismanaging your garden tankie

[@andywomack3414]

What reality does this check?

[@samjackgreen]

(dialectical would mean he intentionally presents two conflicting viewpoints, as a method to arrive at the truth.)

[@johnschuh8616]

Dawkins is a true believer. Noble is a scientist.

[@uingaeoc3905]

Denis is one of those wonderful genuine intellectuals. I knew him 40 years ago at Balliol before his retirement.

[@Dodgerzden]

I've never even heard of him but your assessment is exactly my thoughts after listening to him for just a couple of minutes.

[@willpeony5534]

@@Dodgerzden I never heard of Balliol.

[@DanielJones-wj7mm]

@@willpeony5534 : Don't worry if you have not heard of Balliol. It's a small insignificant college of Oxford University which was founded in 1263 by John de Balliol of Bernard Castle, Durham and which has produced five Nobel Laureates. smh.

[@elizabethcsicsery-ronay1633]

@@DanielJones-wj7mm Good answer , I had a girlfriend who had a Rhodes scholarship from America to Balliol.

[@john_mckinney]

Let me think….how can I make this about me?

[@stevemawer848]

How nice to see an interview without cutting to shots of the interviewer nodding sagely while the interviewee talks. Correct priorities here!

[@skarphld]

That was magnificent. Thank you so much.😊

[@fukpoeslaw3613]

You're welcome

[@keaton718]

"When the Facts Change, I Change My Mind. What Do You Do, Sir?". I don't know who said that first, but Dawkins has said it a lot. The gene therapy cures may be in short supply, but we are now coming up with a lot of gene therapy treatments at least. If your disease didn't previously have a treatment then you'd still be very thankful.

[@ismailhakkisulucay4596]

Wonderful conversation indeed👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼

[@warshipsdd-2142]

Very good discussion, still leaves the why anything and deeper thoughts on being able to percieve untouched.

[@ironwilltattooclub6116]

The stochasticism explains the CHOOSING and the INTELLIGENT UTILIZATION of stochasticism for a functional purpose?? Nope. I think these guys are good scientists but poor philosophers. He’s trying to stay within his materialistic framework while undermining himself with his observations.

[@dukeallen432]

We just don’t know. It’s though not an intelligent being and more, not magical being created by insecure humans.

[@OneFurlongTooLong]

Great interview, excellent choice of questions.

[@aemrng]

Great interviewer too. Congratulations even if we don’t know who you are. That’s how it’s done sir 🫡

[@radwanabu-issa4350]

Horrible interviewer with that sleepy too confident voice!

[@heisenberg6921]

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻…a pleasure to hear this talk by Prof. Noble…

[@irenecraig7739]

I have so much respect for Denis Noble, this man’s rational logical reasoning and willingness to update and rethink his own conclusions , while respecting those of others, even if he believes they are wrong … Dawkins seems unwilling or unable to acknowledge many of his his theories have been debunked .

[@earFront]

The original Dr WHO has graced us with an interview about the nature of the universe.

[@blakebronte1544]

I can see the likeness. 👍🏼🌟

[@thesufi]

William Hartnell lives on!

[@Si_Mondo]

I'm not even a Dr Who fan, and I saw how you got there immediately 😂

[@alanjenkins1508]

All he is saying is that life is complicated and multi layered with redundancy and there is a lot about it we do not understand. Well yes. However, but we have to start somewhere.

[@johnscanlon8467]

He also makes specific neolamarckist claims.

[@fukpoeslaw3613]

You seem to be right aboot that...

[@fukpoeslaw3613]

But yeah, Scanlon might also have a point....

[@fukpoeslaw3613]

@@johnscanlon8467 I said: Scanlon may also have a point.......

[@shanemac7185]

Yes, exactly.

[@s.hauser1732]

I am not I biologist, but I have read Dawkins' books. I don't see a contradiction between genetic determinism and phenomema on a higher level like "the organism" or epigenetics. Dawkins goes even further in "The Extended Phenotype" as he describes the gene can have effects outside the organism. And in "The Blind Watchmaker" that genes even team up. I think Dawkins might regularly be misinterpreted by fellow scientists for various reasons...

[@Resmith18SR]

We as a species will always be continuously searching for the facts about our genetic mechanisms and history and hopefully continue to make general progress in regards to it. Preventing cancer, Alzheimer's, heart disease and all the most common forms of disease and mortality are and will be much closer in the next century. The amazing thing is that it all works and we don't have to understand completely how it works.

[@keithtomey5046]

'Interesting...but Einstein wasn't trying to shock the world - he was trying to match observations to theory..& succeeded to a good extent. 'Creative in a very positive way. (Dot)

[@julienbilodeau6159]

Same for Beethoven ! this idea of trying to shock is infantile.

[@StardustAnlia]

Creativity as a physical process is mentioned here, but is important to make the distinction between creativity and free will. I have never seen free will expressed as a physical process without losing its classification as free will.

[@bg1616]

Free will could be an illusion 🎶

[@zarathustra8789]

Such a pleasure to listen to this extremely informative conversation. Thank you.

[@terjehansen0101]

Nobody cares. Why do you write these generic one liners ?

[@crawkn]

This was a much more technical, as opposed to philosophical, investigation than I expected. I like the acknowledgement about the probabilistic nature of human physiology due to our liquid medium. Chemical processes which are enacted in very small spaces, such as the mitochondria, approach designed determinism more closely than those which must act over greater distances. So in place of logic, we have probabilistic feedback loops, which function fairly well in aggregate but are quite hit or miss on smaller scales.

[@rustycalvera977]

what joy.....how fascinating it is to listen to this very interesting man.

[@Allen1029]

Wonderful man. We need to continue cultivating minds like his.

[@alexappleby8677]

I think there is great merit in both the top down (phenotype down) and bottom up (genome up) approaches. I slightly disagree that the bottom up approach has "failed", though I do concede that the top down approach will probably yield therapeutics much more quickly at the moment. I believe it is crucial for both methods to be employed as we will learn much more about the space between, the epigenetics, from attacking the problem in both directions. The major failure of the bottom up approach was one of hubris, to predict with such fanfare that they would "solve" all problems and diseases within decades. Only to realise of course that the mammalian and particularly the human system is so much more complex than anyone expected. As for the philosophical point, I believe by carrying out both approaches, we will find areas where things are much more deterministic Vs stochastic, and other areas where things are more stochastic. As certain sub-systems will be more complex than others.

[@MrCmon113]

There is no "top down" at all. There is no amino acids that accumulate and then get written into RNA and then DNA. That's just not how evolution works. >to predict with such fanfare that they would "solve" all problems and diseases within decades I have no clue what you're talking about, but The Selfish Gene doesn't include any such predictions. >is so much more complex than anyone expected No. Everything that remains of an organism is the gamete. That's why taking the replicator's perspective is the only thing that makes sense of evolution.

[@sulekhasingh4576]

Listening Denis noble's ideas is truly fascinating. He is one of those courageous biologist who think and talk about disruptive ideas.

[@kiDchemical]

I would classify what he calls creativity as a category of the mind, it's descriptive of a determinate set of behaviors within a determinate set of possibilities. I feel like he gives it a transcendental quality that it doesn't have. For me the determinacy comes from the field of possibilities that structures reality. Within this field, things are contingent based on the faculties of organisms and the particular stimuli organisms happen to come in contact with. To fully understand an organism you would need it's entire history, rather than just an analysis of the parts contained within it (in this regard I find Hegel's metaphysics helpful).

[@dosesandmimoses]

Excellent explanation! I would have thoroughly enjoyed taking your course at university! Too many physiologist’s and biologist’s lectures focus primarily on mechanisms instead of the process of interactions between the systems. Gratitude!

[@artlessons1]

agreed ./thats why he is also a musician.

[@theaudioman4446]

you can feel the aura of a true intellectual listening and seeing Prof Denis Noble, awesome!

[@Conserpov]

True intellectuals don't use fallacies.

[@johndoolan9732]

See talking to pattern recognition untangle and string just by predictability with the whole scientific community tell me 1 year in understanding how learn work as 1

[@haydenwayne3710]

Excellent episode!!! Thank you.

[@danschoenharl3856]

Are we our biology? For 36 years I was happy to believe so. You don't have to tell me that my physiology can easily dictate my behavior. I can make other choices, though, when I know better. I choose love, I choose God. May science and philosophy be pursued and benefits received thereby, but... The determinate factor, is the One who allows you to choose for yourself. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."

[@Ian.Does.Fitness]

What an incredibly interesting and informative video! Denis Noble is indeed a genius! He managed to explain some of the most complicated things simply enough to give me at least a rudimentary understanding. Excellent questions from the interviewer too! 🙏

[@Conserpov]

This "genius" is only a genius at misrepresenting Dawkins.

[@Ian.Does.Fitness]

@@Conserpov How silly. The man has differing opinions. He isn’t representing or misrepresenting Dawkins. He’s representing himself and his ideas borne from many years studying in his field.

[@Conserpov]

​@@Ian.Does.Fitness _> The man has differing opinions._ No, the man egregiously misrepresents another man's position. The man is disingenuous. Clearly, you neither read any of Dawkins' books nor listened to what Dawkins had to say, so you are in no position to judge. Other than that Noble can represent himself all he wants - as someone who doesn't understand evolutionary biology, that is. But this is crossing another line.

[@Eromasta6]

Dawkins is a fool

[@chrisevans1255]

@@Conserpov precisely

[@tanned06]

A lot of valuable insights being poured out by Prof Denis Noble indeed!

[@Al.S.]

Thank you, Professor Noble

[@gabrieltrasto4235]

There are different layers. The state of the art instrumentation should be the guide to what layer we should focus. By looking at a sample of transistors in a cpu, you may guess the computer is multiplying two numbers, but by looking at the assembler code, you know everything relevant.

[@giangosdrakoulas]

The problem is that he is not describing the mechanism which allows the organism to be creative and not determined. How?

[@andyzola]

Because he is talking out his ass and the rubes are cheering

[@martinbennett2228]

Denis Noble's account of the creativity of Beethoven seem be that magic happens. I would like an explanation from him why he cannot be a new 'Beethoven', if the creativity is not the function of biology and the environment. As a musician he is probably aware of the close links between many of the major composers: between JS Bach and his sons (particularly CPE), Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Liszt, Mendelssohn and others we find threads of environmental connections. Beethoven in a different environment could not been Beethoven.

[@cameronlapworth2284]

Yes bethoven wouldnt have had a brian without DNA coding it into place.

[@off6848]

What is a "different environment" here? Some of these guys lived in different countries far away. I don't understand your question

[@andyzola]

Because he is a charlatan. I also get nonce vibes.

[@christopherellis2663]

It's a nicely constructed piece of rhetoric, but what is your hypothesis?

[@ciupenhauer]

​@@andyzola it doesn't count if the young girl is a robot!!

[@guiperion]

About harnessing chance: randomness can't be controlled, by definition and when you, Beethoven, Einstein or a cell chooses a path nobody knows where this decision comes from, it could be determined by previous history (including genetics)

[@marianmoravcik9262]

I really love to hear these arguments.

[@davidhunt313]

Having discovered only at the age of 57 that I am *_autistic_* and have been such since conception,.. how can I still believe in libertarian free will and reject biological determinism??!? I can choose my actions,.. but not my desires?!? It was quite a shock to me to realize my Libertarianism largely followed from my autistic affliction and not my choice?!?

[@FlavioLanfranconi]

This is SO refreshing, to hear good AND well formulated and grounded thoughts ! Thank you!

[@Conserpov]

Wrong. It's full of logical fallacies and misrepresenting Dawkins.

[@user-rk4nx1dx1l]

@@Conserpov Uh? He's not trying to misrepresent Dorkins, he just knows that bit more about the subject under discussion. IMHO

[@Conserpov]

@@user-rk4nx1dx1l _> he just knows that bit more about the subject under discussion_ He does not know nearly enough about genetics and evolutionary biology to challenge Dawkins. In fact, most real geneticists and evolutionary biologists routinely facepalm at his statements. _> He's not trying to misrepresent_ Clearly, you didn't even read Dawkins' books, so your opinion on the matter has zero value.

[@kipling1957]

@@Conserpov Facepalming is an entirely predictable left-brained trait.

[@Baalaaxa]

@@Conserpov Care to provide some examples of said fallacies, and how is he misrepresenting Dawkins?

[@FrostSpike]

Genes give the organism the potential for certain behaviours. Behaviours are then driven by the environment. What we don't understand is the execution engine that interprets the genes to derive those behaviours. The genes themselves partially code that execution engine, but a lot of it is just in the interplay of proteins and chemicals at a molecular, atomic, sub-atomic, and quantum level (which gives the truly stochastic mechanism). Sometimes external forces, like a minor viral infection, can recode that engine too.

[@metamorphosis9958]

Fantastic Interview . Really enjoyed it . Very smart man ...

[@bourbonyoung6237]

Did he just layout the scientific breakthroughs of the last 20 years, and throw in a ‘must be god’!comment? Any student that submitted that response would clearly deserve a failing grade. How someone of his experience does it, is disturbing.

[@MisterWillow]

This is very interesting. Dennis has a point. I fear I don't see how this 'clashes' with Dawkins point of vies (selfish genes). As far as I can see both views are valid, worthwhile can can coexist.

[@Scott_Hoge]

The video doesn't even challenge Dawkins' actual point. According to Dawkins, it is the *gene* that is the fundamental unit of selfishness, not the person. The part about being selfish one day and altrustic the next doesn't apply. In fact, Dawkins himself states that between two creatures possessing the same selfish gene, one may gracefully die for the other.

[@RogerioLupoArteCientifica]

the point where both viewpoints clash is about the agency. Denis is removing the gene from the exclusive cause of agency and is open to investigating all possible agents, whereas Dawkins is a staunch defender of genetic determinism. It gets clearer in their debate. Denis here is pointing out the "new" discoveries from epigenetics that should be incorporated into the debate but are not. Lamarck's ghost has been haunting evolutionary biology again for a long time now, but extremist Darwinists like Dawkins refuse to admit that. Denis' example of selfish or altruistic human behavior wasn't supposed to be related to the selfish gene at all. It was just an example of some of our numerous characteristics, all of which are not exclusively determined by genes, according to his point of view.

[@cyberswine]

The title is click-baity.

[@Conserpov]

_> Dennis has a point._ His only point is a rather crude strawman. He clearly knows too little about genetics and evolutionary biology to challenge actual specialists like Dawkins.

[@1SpudderR]

Somehow Shakespeare’s works are written By Monkeys.......If you believe random dots will produce 6,000,000,000 genes and Trillions of living cells working in unison producing the pen and arm to write the sonnets down!? Still requires the “A Priori Miracle” !?

[@EdMcF1]

He really should frame his points with the briefest of introductions for those of us not aware of the tedious debates that form the background to this.

[@RalphBrooker-gn9iv]

There is a parallel problem I think in cognitive neuro-psychology which claimed that we’d be able to isolate the key modules of the biological architecture of mind (eg. speech, visual, knowledge, inference centres). Eg. it was claimed that Broca’s aphasia & Wernicke’s aphasia comprised a double dissociation of conceptual knowledge and syntactic knowledge. So, according to pathological data we can add to a flow chart of our ex hypothesis biological mental structure (the two functionally discrete aphasias) two modules: conceptual and syntactic knowledge, both modules being mutually independent of one another (ie. doubly dissociated, the so-called criterion for structural identification). The problem here is that the only reason we have to believe this is acceptance of the modularity thesis (roughly, by assuming before the fact the modularity of mind: that the mind is essentially a sort of complex biologically based computer on von Neumann architecture). But the pathological data - the seeming double dissociation of conceptual from syntactic knowledge ‘modules’ - is presented as corroboration of the modularity thesis. Without it we have no reason to accept modularity. So we have simply assumed before the fact the hypothesis that we intended to demo after the fact. The problem has a certain Humean (David Hume) twist to it. I also agree with David Noble and wonder if Richard Dawkins has push neo-Darwinism to an implausible from rationalism, the sought from which Dostoyevsky recoiled so vehemently in ‘Notes From The Underground’.

[@CALIJOE13]

No matter how you slice it, the outcome is always determined. Even if there is freedom of expression based on chance, as Denis Noble suggests, that chance is still governed by the laws of physics. If he is referring to random quantum mechanics as chance, it still does not grant the organism any freedom. Therefore, I am unsure about the point he is trying to make.

[@5piles]

as he indicates, the damage and waste that the hardcore among church physicalism have and will continue producing is immense. heck, they preached the opposite of neural plasticity til the turn turn of the century, and they were only contradicted thru the authority of good engineering, not correct reasoning. nobles approach is helpful but doesnt overcome the standard 10yos psychosis of physicalism due to having no rigorous method of observing the mind directly.

[@CALIJOE13]

@@5piles AI has demonstrated its ability to generate intelligence through a direct method, without relying on subjectivity to explain its reasoning process. And this raises the question of whether dualism is necessary to support the notion that in the future, we might witness the emergence of consciousness and gain a deeper understanding of it’s manifestation. AI so far has shown us that the distribution of information and the process of reasoning can be achieved through objective means, devoid of a dualistic model. This challenges the traditional understanding dualism which posits the existence of both material and immaterial aspects of reality. Maybe if we wait long enough I assume a new understanding of consciousness emerges from the study of objective processes.

[@Vrailly]

@@5piles I find your in group out group formulation of the debate very weird. Why are you behaving like a cheer-leader?

[@Vito_Tuxedo]

@Joel F - You can easily say, "Well the outcome was always determined" after the fact, but that's not what the epistemology of reductionistic determinism promises. It promises to be able to *_predict_* the outcome - in the case of genomes, to understand the genomic mechanics so thoroughly as to be able to engineer solutions, consistently, reliably, and predictably. Nope. There is no such capability. And if the still-nascent theory of complexity is on the right track, that capability has as much chance of existing as a generalized solution to the n-body problem. IOW, it's not going to happen. Whether Dr. Noble is right in his prediction that AI cannot muster the complexity to invoke stochastic processes and engender truly creative, conscious beings is less certain. What it requires is the emergence of a machine that has learned how to learn. That is, its behavior is no longer constrained by the limits of its initial programming, and its ability to learn is essentially unlimited. That would constitute the emergence of a new species. For my part, that's the worrisome aspect of AI.

[@off6848]

@@Vito_Tuxedo Actually no he can't. According to him we're all forced to post our comments by causality and determinism. He can't help but argue it was determined at the big bang lol Also, AI won't appear as intelligent or conscious to us until we merge it with organ senses. The sensory organs are what the bedrock of consciousness interfaces with. If it is intelligent as a machine we will never understand it because it's ontology is to alien. A machine learning scientist will understand AI about as good as the most briliant entymologist understands what it is to be a bug

[@szyszkienty]

An interesting talk with a misleading and clickbaity title.

[@seandonahue8464]

I thought this may be some sort of click bait thing. He actually was bringing up some great points! I really like this channel. I wish rational debate and discussion was more popular on the wider internet!

[@user-bp7go4zp2i]

I agree with him. Scholars must be able to see things as a whole, not complexity in detail, but as a whole: there is logic.

[@tommason8104]

As someone with a strong intellectual curiosity but with a very limited amount of knowledge of biological science, I found Denis Noble’s ideas and explanations both understandable and acceptable. I don’t say that in judgement of him, I say that as a complement to how he is capable of making very advanced scientific notions available to a common mind, such as mine.

[@andrefelixstudio2833]

Very interesting and a intellectual conversation!

[@user-bl7oe2md4p]

I believe that what Mr. Noble (interesting name for a scientist) is referring to is the non material dimensions of biological systems. This would indeed be a very radical change in the scientific paradigm. Perhaps some of this will involve something more akin to consciousness at work in the microcosm and in the macrocosm. Also in how systems are organized including communication and information flows which functional elements operate in association and cooperation.

[@ttecnotut]

I just discovered Noble and I love him

[@dlcurtis69]

Noble, speaking about Descartes' ideas, said, "there must be a spiritual entity that interacts with the mechanics, this was Cartesian dualism..." Then expressing his own idea he said, "we don't need dualism, the agency of organisms comes from within us..." Now, it is certainly fine to have your own ideas. But he is doing what scientists do so often, they present an idea as though it is a scientific truth, but they do not back their idea with evidence. Whatever you might believe about "spiritual entities" and "agency of organisms," if you have not proven it with scientific evidence, then it is an personal opinion and it should be labeled as such.

[@piushalg5041]

There seem to be questions natural science is not able to answer by its very definition. And therefore the answer that everybody is his own agent sounds trivial or as old as humankind.

[@kipling1957]

Scientism is the claim that the only form of knowledge derives from the scientific method producing “evidence.” Noble only mentions spiritual entities as a way of framing the absurdity of Cartesian formality applied to living systems. His sounds more like a dynamical systems theory approach to complexity and intelligence, in which the resultant agency of the organism derives from simple but myriad reciprocal loops. In other words, a complex but constrained system. Stephen Wolfram is developing computational models around such systems. Cartesian models often portray the universe as deterministic, obeying fixed laws of physics. On the other hand, Wolfram's theories suggest that the universe operates more like a computer, following a set of simple rules that compute the next state of the universe from the current state. This approach embraces the notion of computational irreducibility, where the only way to know the outcome of a system is to perform the computation (or let the system evolve). There's no shortcut as we often find in deterministic equations. You might also explore the work of the biologist, Michael Levin. Levin's research into morphogenesis is similarly concerned with how complex biological structures emerge from cellular interactions. Both might be seen as studying different kinds of "automata"-Wolfram more in a computational or mathematical sense, and Levin in a biological one.

[@MrMikkyn]

I love when an person who is knowledgeable in science also has a scholarly and big picture understanding of their field. Sometimes I find in the biology and medical field it is very much on the micro-level. It is not so visionary. Denis Noble brings history into the picture, and whole texts from authors and relates it back to physiology, evolution, and from that topic to healthcare. In other cases the endocrinologist will stick to that field, the microbiologist to microbiology, the geneticist to genetics, the epigeneticist to epigenetics, the neuroscientist to neuroscience, the general doctor to general medicine. He does not do that however. He has the intellectual holistic view or all the micro-disciplines.

[@lawrence1318]

"I love IT when .... ". You can't say "I love when" unless you are meaning to say you love the actual time in and of itself.

[@lawrence1318]

​@@G.A.M.E. Er ... youtube corrects your grammar as you type. Are they nerds too? Or is it OK if they do it because they're the establishment but not OK for anyone else? You're a native English speaker, so speak English. You can't say in English: "I love when ....". You must say: "I love it when ...." So pull your head in, humble yourself, and stand corrected. The language is being butchered enough without adding your pithy little American changes designed to get everyone to copy you.

[@foffjerkholes4995]

You really want to know they "seemed fixed on the micro level"? It's because biology, in it's entirity is unBELIVABLY COMPLEX AND THERE IS NOT NEARLY ENOUGH STUDENTS GOING INTO THE FIELD.

[@taseenhaider3961]

Appreciating limitation of our research and putting a different workmodel .

[@SandyCharlotte]

Excellent discussion. Thank you.

[@weaseldragon]

The lack of effective treatments does not refute genetic determinism. The more parsimonious conclusion is that genetic determinism is simply more complex than predicted.

[@daveblack2602]

And your evidence for that is what?

[@nerdyali4154]

@@daveblack2602 Reality.

[@off6848]

@@daveblack2602 Evidence isn't required he was forced to make this comment by causality

[@brechtkuppens]

It is the 2-way interaction of genes with the environment during the course of development that determines the outcome of said development

[@off6848]

@@brechtkuppens Why are we talking about it as if genes and environment are separate. Unless you're proposing a spiritual element everything is just dumb matter even genes which are made up smaller things that are just matter.

[@Gottenhimfella]

15:42 I think he's invoking a false dichotomy (when he postulates that either genes determine behaviour, or if not, free will must do so). It seems plausible that genetics and epigenetics predispose a particular individual towards certain behavioural practices, but that nurture and free will also play vital roles.

[@the_dark_one6052]

Precisely. Nothing is black and white when it comes to biochemistry.

[@ianjones7266]

Very interesting, complicated and thought provoking. I'm of for a long think.👍

[@Azoria4]

Noble’s point about using chance to create novelty, particularly at 19:55 reminds me of what Keats calls ‘Negative Capability’.

[@kipling1957]

He seems to be talking about dynamic complex systems, myriad feedback loops between all levels of physiology, the genome, molecules, with resultant unpredictable outcomes. A form of intelligence. Would love this man to converse with the likes of John Vervaeke, Michael Levin, Stephen Wolfram, Ian McGilChrist...etc.

[@campbellpaul]

Basically, all the things that future pharmaceuticals will bypass and ignore. The result will be catastrophic, of course!

[@afterthesmash]

I was shocked at the incongruity of your list of names until I realized that in addition to Michael Levin the philosopher (with racist inclinations) there is also Michael Levin the biologist, who seems like an all-around brilliant guy, on first inspection.

[@SystemsMedicine]

Hi Campbell. Various pharmaceutical companies (and of course pharmacy & biology departments at universities) have been working very hard to incorporate notions of complex biological pathways and systems biology into their drug discovery and evaluation processes for decades now. This stuff got underway at companies and universities in the last century. In some areas, the companies led the way. [It's time to catch up. Cheers.]

[@MrCmon113]

Well that's completely untrue. Genes get translated to RNA and then to proteins. Not the other way around. You're blabbering about "myriad feedback loops" and that gets you exactly nowhere. Genes are what actually lasts from generation to generation and that's why their perspective explains evolution and not the perspective of proteins.

[@campbellpaul]

@@SystemsMedicine They just caught the most influential university in the world embellishing their research to support their data. I rest my case.

[@kennethttt5ttt548]

Excellent talk! Informative on many levels.

[@fukpoeslaw3613]

Ah well, what can I say....

[@oskarngo9138]

@16:05 Nobel is Wrong... A person’s “mood” is highly dependent on the “physical” state of the body; ... which is “indirectly-dependent “ on one’s genes and Not on freewill... Exp.. when one is hungry (body lacking sugar/energy) and/or one is stressed (body flooded with stress hormones); ...one tends to be much More in a bad /Non-Charitably Mood than when one is full/not-stressed/etc... There are many examples where a person suffered brain damage;... and their mood; behavior; essence changed...! Anyway; Nobel and Dawkins really differ in Nuances;... ... they both reject the “God-hypothesis”....!

[@kennethttt5ttt548]

@@oskarngo9138 I'm actually an expert in body/mind connection. There is an influence between body experiences and psychological views certainly, but especially in trained people, it is not an overwhelming influence. The same can be said in reverse; psychological states can strongly influence body states and even body capacities. Try doing five years of day to day Tai Chi Chuan and Meditation. I can't think of anything Noble said that would deny issues like brain damage. Neo-Darwinism and Behaviorism both have portions of their explanation of the world which later experiments proved to be highly questionable or simply wrong. As for God, as mentioned in the video, Pascal created a dualistic approach so that anything "spiritual" was left to the church and anything "physical" was left to science. This was taken as a matter of dogma, not as a scientifically studied hypothesis that is either proved or disproved. Part of that was Pascal's assertion that mind/consciousness does not affect matter. This is simply false as many examples have shown.

[@Rhibb23]

Denis seems to be wanting to say that we have some kind of will and can choose the outcome of our stochastic processes, yet I don't see how that can be. If the inner processes are stochastic, and so are the external ones where does the will come in? Are we to say our will is ultimately random? How would we call that will?

[@przemekkobel4874]

What he says about DNA switches is very similar to an early AI technology called 'expert system'. Except we are able to track what such system does, and why. Also notice how few people these days experience education that would allow one to become a musician, biologist and programmer (and I suspect the list goes on and on).

[@erdwaenor]

How incredibly Educated is this person. Certainly, not just a Scientist -and nothing against being a Scientist by the way which is a great thing, but we are never 'only this or that'. Thanks for the people on *iai* for this jewel interview.

[@SueFerreira75]

Agreed and for me, this and other similar discussions highlight how far the tenets of a liberal and wide education emphasizing logic and rationalization has diminished.

[@instamdgram]

It's amusing to call a scientist "educated"!

[@erdwaenor]

​@@instamdgram Ironically! It is important that scientists as well as non-scientists, become more aware of the challenges (but also of the usefulness) of a broader education.

[@instamdgram]

@@erdwaenor where is the irony in that? To simplify, you cannot be a scientist unless you're educated. I guess you're talking on a different wavelength or I'm (gladly) "uneducated" to understand the relevance of broader education in "this" context.

[@aljoschalong625]

Very interesting and insightful. I just don't think Dawkins would contradict that much.

[@kalijasin]

Dawkins is not even a biologist. He has a DPhil and DSc. Those are not biology degrees.

[@aljoschalong625]

@@kalijasin He got his PhD in zoology and his DSc is a doctorate in science which goes beyond a PhD. What is your concern? That he ridicules - and rightly so - muslims (even deaf ones), christians and all the other spreaders of memes of delusions?

[@sciencefliestothemoon2305]

"sequencing the genome alone hasn't revolutionised medicine." To quote an English speaker, "you what mate?" Being able to sequence pathogen genomes was a revolution in many ways for medicine, making it faster, more efficient and even possible to come up with new ideas for cures and control methods.

[@peteypeterson80]

What an interview! Fascinating.

[@edmond4005]

So well explained, so clear, so insightful. Brilliant.

[@arthurwieczorek4894]

0:28. Biological determinism means behavioral control and prediction---that's and prediction. So we are not talking here about determinism as an explanation after the fact. So he says control is within us, but not biological.?

[@cryptout]

Interesting, I need to learn more about this.

[@dauntlessRRs]

This is important to me as a dog breeder in this age of breeding by DNA Tests rather than the whole dog. Just as with 'breeding by numbers' (dogs scored by 'experts' on a point by point interpretation of a written 'standard'), there is a great danger of breeding into dead ends when those individuals with that, 'special something', are denied to breeders with 'an eye' to see 'it'.

[@dawnemile7499]

Denis Noble is so sharp despite his age.

[@chrishoffman5610]

Very interesting. I did notice the speaker say in regards to spirit and mechanism that he could not conceive it therefore it doesn't make sense. He also utilized the musical score analogy which I think seems logical, however he is a musician. The thinker seems to find it hard to separate himself from his thoughts

[@adamadappa]

Don't we all?

[@mayukhdifferent]

This talk strengthen two important things which has been neglected for years 1. Non Turing representation of building block of life rather than turing based on/off genes, a theory propounded by Dr wheeler and in contemporary age, Dr Anirban Bandyopadhyay 2. The philosophical underpinning of advaita (non dual) vedanta, where "atman in brahman" or "tat swam asi"

[@user-ff5ec2ie9w]

Absolutely brilliant 👏

[@rodbenson5879]

I use a car analogy. The gene sequences are like having a fully deconstructed car on a garage floor. If you were an alien looking at the components in isolation, it would be nearly impossible, without reconstructing the car to understand its function by cataloguing the individual nuts and bolts. This is why sustems biology is such an important discipline.

[@eensio]

The title gives the wrong impression about Dawkins. Why?

[@grantm6514]

Because it gets clicks.

[@eswn1816]

​@@grantm6514 "Clickbait" on KZbin is ubiquitous!

[@riccardodececco4404]

The title is spot on - which part of the discussion didn´t you get?

[@thethe1]

Dawkins is wrong in every point of Darwinism. He don't understand clearly Darwin's theory.

[@Conserpov]

@@riccardodececco4404 _> The title is spot on_ Can you name one thing that Dawkins actually said and is shown wrong in this video? You can't.

[@giuliobuccini208]

Fascinating.... I not completely agree with him, but his arguments are really stimulating and refreshing.

[@poolschool5587]

Nuanced discussion like this only makes is clearer to me how much is not yet clear (and perhaps never will or can be)

[@DarkForcesStudio]

God please bless me with Denis Noble's clarity of thought when I'm 86.

[@tongleekwan1324]

Nothing to do with god anymore in this scientific n technological era.

[@terencefield3204]

Wonderful clarity of ideas rarely spread to the peasantry.

[@fukpoeslaw3613]

Pleasantry; rhimes with

[@terencefield3204]

@@fukpoeslaw3613 Not me sonny. I am rough and as non-oxford as it is possible to be. Thank God;.

[@ruperterskin2117]

Right on. Thanks for sharing.

[@mlh3604]

He uses the chances of human mind to perform this multilayer systemic way of thinking. A beautiful man.

[@lexunajinrui1340]

Voilà un homme qui en plus de son énorme connaissance ajoute une sagesse et un recul sur la vie qui devrait inspiré beaucoup de jeunes étudiants

[@John-uh8kl]

Bien. Jrb. 🇬🇧

[@No2AI]

Always beneficial to share thoughts and ideas - the truth however is that we simply don’t know, no matter how intellectually the case is presented .

[@johncampbell9216]

We know better than this old liar.

[@fukpoeslaw3613]

That's right!

[@theuniques1199]

We know everything right now because we know that we exist right now including our belief that we may not know and that we may know by what means that we do exist by right now because we absolutely know that we exist as all of existence itself right now, summary: right now is always absolutely right now including the assumption(belief, illusion) by what means that we may exist by right now to know that we exist as all of existence itself absolutely right now.

[@No2AI]

@@theuniques1199 in my view the only absolute is the ‘ I AM ‘ everything else I don’t know.

[@yoso585]

@@No2AI Huge assumption

[@mehmetsarikaya1157]

Great interview and wonderful explanations. Instead of "selfish gene", it should be "selfish proteins, including the enzymes and the systems they are working in." I made this point to Dawkins at a book signing after his talk on one of his books (which are all wonderful, BTW).. he just looked at my face, said nothing. I am so glad to have listened to Denis Noble. We use directed evolution to select peptides (tiny proteins) for a specific function within a given environment. It works like a charm.. not many people are doing it.. I don't know why (ignorance, lazy, sticking to one's path, etc.). As Denis Noble says, organisms are doing it all the time.. and we humans do it all the time.

[@onedaya_martian1238]

Dawkins probably thought... "This chap doesn't understand that those enzymes/proteins/peptides come from genes! How will he be able to read this book ?" And he wouldn't be too far wrong. Denis Noble points out, implicitly I believe, that there is a trinity of components (pun not intended), the environment, the protiens/enzymes/plasmids/peptides/etc and the genes, which stochastically respond to each other in a nondeterministic way (overall!, but as best as possible, this is where he infers the process is "creative"). So the answer that the proteins/enzymes/etc are selfish seems silly. The peptides/enzymes etc are simply the huge communicating mechanisms between the gene and the organizm. And this allows for the profound comment that this disposes of the need to believe in dualism. The body/cells/genes and the person/soul/physiology are each "selfishly" bound by the proteins, plasmids etc. What I think will be the next revelation after Dr. Noble's ideas are mainstream, is that the earth's biome, viruses, bacteria etc play an important role in manipulating, "communicating" and evolving our genes and our physiology !!