Has the unique power of genes been overstated? Leave your thoughts in the comments. Watch the full talk with a free subscription trial at iai.tv/video/biology-beyond-genes-denis-noble?UA-cam&
@@TheInstituteOfArtAndIdeas sad that you don't let people see the full video. You claim "The charity funds the provision of live and online cultural events that seek to further the education, understanding and engagement of the public" but basically decided to use UA-cam as your advertising platform.
I have read and adored most of Dawkins’ books and recently read Noble’s ‘Dance to the Tune of Life’. Whilst I don’t fully endorse Noble’s repudiation of the gene-centric view of life, I think his work is fascinating and has a lot to tell us about the function of non-genetic, physiological actuation in regulating the cell and precipitating evolutionary development. To call him a charlatan or to outright denigrate his work is a perfect demonstration of the pig-headedness and dogmatic attitudes of those who unconditionally subscribe to the biological orthodoxy because they feel threatened by the prospect of a fringe scientist challenging someone as revered as Dawkins. “Don’t take refuge in the false security of consensus.”
What is Noble's definition of purpose? I've heard a full hour talk with him on a podcast: but these more casual talks lack the clarity needed to connect the most important bits
Furthermore he's not revered because revered would imply that he is more than 50% popular in the general public opinion polls. Secondly pull your head out of his ask for a second and actually learn what the words you're trying to use mean.
The whole speech is based on a misunderstanding (seemingly wilfully) of Dawkins’ notion of the gene as selfish, which is an argument he makes from the perspective of natural selection. It seems obvious that Noble is desperate to be seen as important and the best way he could imagine to do that is to oppose Dawkins’ ideas, given the mass popularity of “The Selfish Gene”.
I can’t interpret his speech as genuine given nobody sincerely denies that epigenetic processes affect germline development. That understanding runs parallel to the notion of the selfish gene quite comfortably. Noble is just muddying the waters by contending with Dawkins’ point on the selfish gene in the context of natural selection. It’s disingenuous and wilful misunderstanding which is poor form in the field of science.
You truncate the video and then demand payment to see the rest??? You waste my time by not indicating it was a partial video? I'm not gong to follow your link after that cynical and manipulative technique. I was interested in looking further into the IAI before that tactic. Goodbye.
The notion that genes are not the sole blueprint for life underscores the complexity of biological development. While genes provide essential instructions for building and maintaining organisms, they interact with environmental factors and epigenetic modifications that influence how genetic information is expressed. This perspective highlights the intricate interplay between genetic and non-genetic factors in shaping living systems. How can this understanding of the gene-environment interaction enhance our approaches to personalized medicine and disease prevention, and what implications does it have for future research in genetics and developmental biology?
How supremely annoying and counter-productive is this bait & switch video contrivance. I even went through the dishonest claim on the IAI site, that I could continue watching if I signed up for email, but I ended up at the same paywall obstacle on their website. Apparently there is no straightforward way to continue this video, although it seems money might solve that problem. After wasting my time trying to continue, I've learned something very important about the IAI -- they are comfortable to prioritize clickbait and bait & switch sales tricks over the science they claim to promote. Very disappointing. It's perfectly fine to erect a paywall for certain content, but not the way it's done by the IAI. They have thoroughly alienated me, and other comments show I am not alone in resenting this kind of manipulation.
He already GAVE u the main concept of the peer reviewed study in journal nature. The simplest way to say it is that they have PROOF now that EPIGENETICS is real and has a biological process, so logical conclusion is: heal yourself spiritually, mentally and physically BEFORE procreating. And then don’t damage the offspring once they’re born or the results will be in all the generations to come! You’re welcome.
I clicked Your link to your website but once I accessed this video it repeatedly froze. . You should allow the entire video to play on your UA-cam channel so people can receive the knowledge and information instead of using it as a commercial teaser so that people are forced onto your deficient website.
what Dr Noble is trying to warn us of is the danger of using a computer programming language without understanding its compiler- biologists are philosophically focusing on the syntax of a language they haven't defined...
it's like saying the XOR operator is selfish, or a WHILE loop is selfish, loops are endlessly selfish in C++ but barely selfish at all in JavaScript...
I'm doing my best to try and fix that. 3D computation is what we don't do with computers. We've taken Knuth's complexity theory as permission to stack binary to a functional limit. Making protein coding deterministic in 2 dimensions is not possible. Water is the computational substrate of biology.
@@dsm5d723 kudos and godspeed, i know im not deep enough in to really be able to express this idea and am SUPER happy to come back here and see at least one professional benefitted from this synthesis!
I have to chime in on this... I don't think his assertion of no conditionals existing between nucleic pairs is correct. And he left out uracil if that matters. The purine adenine (A) always pairs with the pyrimidine thymine (T), and the pyrimidine cytosine (C) always pairs with the purine guanine (G). The conditional (if then) exists in their persistence of chemical behavior. If A encounters !T (c code) then don't pair. It is an intrinsic state machine... and all state machines are conditionals even if in a switched aspect (case). Thoughts welcome.
Denis and Michael Levin need to get together for a pod cast. They seem to be on the same wavelength. The genes don't contain instructions for morphology. And cells problem solve to achieve a goal, without a nervous system. (William James definition of intelligence.)
Yes, and Nick Lane. If you don't know his work, look it up. I've been posting proof of concept for a gene drive in the comments. The key is the relationship, in the "machine code" of water, between genetic information and bioelectricity. It's based on a structured water device. And genetics needs a 3D math paradigm that makes protein coding deterministic. It's all a lot simpler than most people would ever allow, or so it seems to me.
@@dsm5d723 Just watched a Nick Lane video. Very impressive. I hadn't heard of him so thanks for the heads up. For years I felt the scientific community had become "dogmatic" in regards to evolution, as if it were an open and closed case, which is just silly when you consider just how much we still don't understand about the process of life from a scientific standpoint.
As usual, the vast majority of people in this comments section: have not studied biology at any university level, don't have any background in biology, have not published any papers in the field of biology, and have not done any proper research in the field. This is fine in itself. However, you all then seem confident to criticize / critique Denis Noble's theories, who is an actual, real and non-UA-cam expert in the field. The same people are philosophically biased towards Dawkins and are willing to discount theories they have not understood just to keep that up.
Pascal, Edison, Galileo, Faraday, Ampere, and Einstein may think it is a mistake to assume only those with PhDs have value add contributions. Scientific elitism perpetuates bad ideas by creating an in group that pressures conformance to legacy theories. Autodidacts are the only innovative engine left in science.
Because most diseases are environmental and genes interact with the environment and we are still discovering many new properties of chromosomes, it does not mean that they are not the metaphorical blueprint, it is just more complex.
I agree. Just look at identical twins or even clones of other animals or selective breeding of given animals and how they match each other so closely: If anything the potency of genes/genetics will only become more vivid with greater understanding atst as the complexity of feedback-systems knowledge with genes grows also.
@@commentarytalk1446 the point is that they don't match each other that closely, especially in the case of clones. Dolly looked very different from her source, which emphasizes the importance of the environment. Even twins don't share finger prints because those develop in the womb and are likely a result of self-organization a la Alan Turing.
@@snowballeffect7812 I met Dolly The Sheep as part of a study trip along with the scientist that led the work on her. The major difference was the artificial environment at the time which contributed to poorer health in her later years. I think you're being very imprecise and vague to the degree of saying nothing of substance, when you state: >"the point is that they don't match each other that closely, especially in the case of clones." Goes against all the evidence, development will proceed via different variables but the same genetics is striking how well it matches across so many parameters.
@@commentarytalk1446 dolly was literally a different size and her bone structure was quite different. she also was found to have shorter telomeres and developed a progressive lung disease and arthritis, though it's uncertain if these diseases were a consequence of her being a clone or not. other clones also did not live as long, either since the technology is actually quite finicky and error-prone. It's simply a matter of fact which anyone with even a cursory experience in genetics would know. Why anyone who allegedly met Dolly (on a study trip, no less) would not know this is baffling. cloned cats, for example, don't even have the same fur patterns, let alone personalities. Many traits, like fingerprints in human twins as stated before and fur patterns as stated here, are a result of self-organizing chaotic feedback systems/fractals. What is the point of being so incredibly defensive while being absolutely incorrect?
When i was studying electrical engineering in college I remember a very interesting lecture a professor made. He mentioned that everything is about electrical potential differences, from your light bulb to your cells and muslce fibers. Since that day ive read so many books across multiple fields of study to see how my studies improved my ability to understand other concepts. Pretty cool. Journey of life is is to learn.
It's strange people accusing Noble of misunderstanding "Dawkins' theory". Gene-centred evolution is not Dawkins' theory, he is a populariser of it. Dawkins' magnum opus is probably the concept of the extended phenotype. Meanwhile Noble is a pioneer in mathematical biology. It's ridiculous that people take Dawkins as the be all and end all of biology simply because they don't know any other biologists - and then think they are being scientific by doing so!
The "instructions change, but the instructions for each are also different to begin with. Perhaps also some instructions are designed to be easily altered where as some instructions are "hard wired"?
you missed his point. It is of course through genes many biological functions occur. He is just removing the genes from their perceived role of having primary causation to everything that happens in the cell. Genes are not drivers, they are passengers along with the organism through the life cycle of an organism.
@@Elmirgtr let’s try another way. Two different organisms with different genes and same environment will have different outcomes. Genes are not mere passengers. It’s a combination of genes and environment that’s driving behavior.
11:09 He says that after the encounter with the virus some of the genes mutate to create antibodies that will bind to the invader. That’s not what mainly happens. • The idea that immune cells “mutate their genes” after encountering a virus might be a reference to the somatic hypermutation process, but this doesn’t happen immediately or solely in response to a new pathogen. Instead, it’s a refinement process that happens after initial recognition, aiming to increase the effectiveness of the antibodies being produced. • The initial recognition of the virus is based on the existing pool of diverse antibodies generated by V(D)J recombination, not by mutating genes in response to the virus itself.
This is just a difference in perspective. The end result is exactly the same. A species resists diversity by rejecting the malformed, but the genes and their control mechanisms mutate randomly creating difference. Sometime the difference gives a survival advantage, but mostly it does not.
The issue is not that we cannot read a message in the genome but that something is a message only for the messenger. Information alone does not make a computer work.
Assuming we're talking organizational layers in matter here (physics is not chemistry is not biology, etc.) and rather than bottom-up, nature works top-down, then this would implicate there has to also be a layer above the top one.... This layer above the top-layer is the one that mind is in the process of figuring out. Meaning that all layers were also at one time getting figured out by mind as the layer above the aggregate of already explicated layers. Explicated meaning transferred from mind into matter. This is the relationship between mind and matter. The figuring out by mind pertains to weak emergence, while the transfer of the organizational layer into matter pertains to strong emergence. Homer's Odyssey is about this process involving weak and strong emergence. Odysseus' journey represents weak emergence, and when he reveals his identity to Penelope this represents strong emergence. Penelope and her consort use the pattern that Odysseus came back with to weave the fabric of matter with.
Denis Nobel's argument is understandable. It is well known that in crocodiles sex of the progeny is determined by temperature of incubation of the egg. Eggs incubated at temp. around 30 degree C are female and those arnoud 34 degree are male.
Yes, but does that happen because by brute force the heat destroys a part of the genetic info, or because information is transmitted through the membrane via proteins channels? Your understanding lacks the scientific specify that his talk is attempting to convey. While even a farmer can observe what you described, it takes a scientist to explain why it occurs at a biomolecular level.
@@stevedoetsch Maybe even a farmer could type that better than you did? Scientific specify? You mean specificity? There is no need to belittle other people when you are tiny yourself.
@@saltynutzz 7 words. No grammatical errors. Proper punctuation. You cannot count apparently and certainly don't know grammar. In fact you made two grammatical errors and left out two questions marks. D- for you, grammar n*zi.
@@ferrantepallas It is not that it has grammatical mistakes, rather, the style is both too simple and ever-striving for a more complex one. I will not rephrase, that's not my job. My duty is simply to point out that, by your comma placement, the sentence could've achieved more meaning and substance. Why is this important? Because even the most mundane writing is writing, and, your writing *IS* *your writing*. The totality of your perception and inquiry, internal and external, can be modeled like clay by the way you *think*.And by writing you declutter and arrange the fruits of your reason. I dearly hope this will help clear any misconception or ambiguousness of your comment or any further reply. Bless.
I only watched this short video, not his entire presentation. I see his point about systemic control of the genome switch, but what is his final conclusion? I hope it's not that we can "think" ourselves to a better person. Also, what he said about his mother's ovum is pretty fascinating. Is he saying that the ability to control the genomes lies outside the DNA strand in the ovum? Much to think about.
@@KOKOPIKOSS While McClintock's findings emphasize genomic complexity and regulation, and Dawkins focuses on the replicative success of genes, these views can complement each other by showing that some genes (like transposons) can be both dynamic and "selfish" in their behavior
I am a thinker..the one thing you don't have to learn to do . Thinking can solve any answer that is not learnt. I think that the answers lie in the trees and one day the learners will think this to.
Fundamentally, the environment affects genes and in turn, genes control expression. So you can use genetic therapy and engineering to mod expression. Thus rendering this guy's point moot.
@@meadish Noble's argument seems to be that the lipids that make up membranes aren't generated by DNA, therefore the egg is essential for "enabling" DNA to even exist to do its job of creating proteins...which are then incorporated into the membranes to regulate chemical processes.
Since the phospholipid bilayers form automatically, this in itself doesn't have to be encoded... However the metabolism of membranes is regulated genetically. The argument may have been: is the genetic material sufficient to build a whole living cell?
@@meadish the egg (secondary oocytes) cell contains most if not all of the mitochondria the fertilized egg will ever have. These mitochondria contain their own DNA. The egg also has a set of cytoplasmic proteins and RNAs that will become part of the fertilized egg.
Interesing. The 14 min version so far. Perhaps Ive missed something... but I didnt see much so far that seemed 'new'. He says: - genes have conditional behaviour, - that can be triggered by the higher level structures they contain some sort of blue print to build, - thus the environment - in the wideat sense - controls the genes, which in tuen build/instruct the building of the higher level 'things' which in turn may switxh gene 'paths' on and off. So a feedback system, which bootstraps itslef and then which can be influenced to do different things. All good. Is that new? Did anyone think that genes just had a single path they could followbin terms of their influence? I mean we know there are embedded atavisms in there, old 'build plans' which arent mostly used. For menthe question would be: - does qnything he says detract feom the darinian model of how the gznes got there in the fiest place? - is evolution by natural selection being challenged here? More interesting for le is Michael Levins work. That seems to be genuinely ground breqking. Partbof his thesis is that our genes create oroble' solving structured (cells for example ) that seem to genuinly to exhibit whqt might be called intelligence - within their limited environment, or problem space... to put it another way Hozever Id be delighted if someone were to enlighten le if I have this wrong.
it is not so much a challenge of natural selection as the need to recognize it is only half the equation- imagine an organism that evolved to alter its offspring, like a queen ant, the idea that evolution is limited to natural selection is such a dogma that Dr Noble drawing a simple line from epigenetics to a recognition that genes are no more a complete program than a text file that might happen to be C++ or could just as easily be HTML or JavaScript- acting like we understand genetics while dogmatically adhering to natural selection as the sole means of evolution is like expecting a webpage you made in 2005 to work just fine on a modern browser and refusing to acknowledge that defining the browser will make it easier to read/write web pages.
Hence, it's not just the 'system' that's critical, but intelligence as well. Nagel, was right: the reductive naturalist dogma is wrong in its outright dismissal of teleology and intelligence in nature.
Richard Dawkins did not choose the adjective ‘selfish’ to suggest that genes are wilful. While aware that the chicken-or-egg question has no satisfactory answer, he gave the less popular one to provoke the orthodoxy of the time. It is neither true nor false that the Sun revolves around the Earth but it simplifies calculations if we take a heliocentric view of our planetary system. Similarly, a genecentric view can present a useful perspective, though it may upset the literal minded. Like Quantum Physics needs hidden variables (?), Genetics needs hidden controls or controller: the trick, however, is to manage without this hypothesis.
@@geog26 the FRAME OF REFERENCE matters. Whatever quora is, some thinking happens independently of it. If we take the galaxy as our frame of reference, then the Sun and the Earth orbit their mutual centre of gravity.
"Selfish" is a misleading metaphor, even Dawkins admitted it. At best, it is a redundant metaphor. It just succeeded because it reads like a catchy "meme".
Sorry to just post and go, but I've said this myself many times already. For Chrissake, genes are blueprints for proteins, not traits necessarily--usually not. Maybe eye color, which might be where this misconception comes from. We know now about epigenetics, the subtle mechanism which turns genes on and off. The epigenetic mechanism represents an immensely flexible system that enables the organism full adaptability. I mean, think about how static a system in which traits are hard-coded more or less for the duration, would be. Not very adaptable.
Yes, and even eye color is a not fully determined by genes. There are blue eyes parents with brown eyes offsprings. Genes are just the start of a long pathway to get a particular trait.
@@annunacky4463 it's almost certainly not our minds, at least not at any conscious level. the body has much more effect over our mind than the other way around, like how you can barely think straight if you have to go to the bathroom, are freezing, are in immense pain or under chronic stress. Both intrinsic, internal and external factors over short and long periods of time affect our bodies, which in term affects our mind and most of these process are not through the nervous system, but through hormones (endocrine system). These chemical signal pathways are what really control our biological systems from embryo to reproduction, taking care of our young and others and beyond.
@@saltynutzz You obviously know virtually nothing about molecular genetics. Genes necessarily encode for proteins via the processes of transcription and translation. Genes merely produce the polypeptide chains that fold into the native structures of respective proteins. The genetic code was produced through a co-evolutionary mechanism, where specific codons became associated with certain amino acids to produce an adaptive value. Epigenetics is not an outdated term; it actually refers to the addition of chemical tags that control the transcription rate of certain genes, and these mechanisms are highly variable based on various regulation pathways. We also have alternative splicing as a mechanism, where certain introns are removed in order to produce unique mRNA messages that encode for a greater variety of proteins. Thanks for demonstrating your ignorance of the subject. I hope that you study Biology and familiarise yourself with scientific concepts before spreading misinformation on the Internet.
This like a people arguing whether Nature or Nurture is more important.... Both Genes and Proteins are Equally important and both directs each other’s evolution...
Finally. Russian scientist Sergei Saveliev has been writing about it for the past 20 plus years. Morphogenetic principles are at the bases, cells interactions, membranes tension controls when and what genes are turned on. The shape, morphology is primary.
I cannot pass judgement on the mathematics of genes, but I agree that there are factors that control the make up of DNA throughout your life. The types of "knowledge," my father passed on to me is different from my older brothers. By the time he conceived me at 36, he transfered a knack for the trades he trained for and practiced. My oldest brother, conceived when he was 29, has a more immature set of physical reactions toward the world at large. He also has always identified with values of his maternal Grandfather, which may explain some of the preferred behavioral and knowledge paths he has taken from conception.
read sometime ago that our energy powerhouses mitochondria actually came from our mothers, they are living organisms that have their own genes, i was quite amazed at the time
Actions we take in our life, the type of environment we live in, and the type of food and chemicals we ingest can switch many genes on or off through something known as EPIGENETICS. Curiously, the food our grandparents and parents chose to eat affects our own epigenetics to some degree.
I don’t think Noble understands Dawkins, and I will say that the combination of genes from two parents enables all of the processes Noble describes, and without that combination, nothing happens at all. So I will continue to consider Dawkins the authority on biology.
Whichever authority you choose, just acknowledge that your "science" is nothing more than choosing between authorities, aka, a faith. Until you are able to reason through what you have been taught you remain in the cult of scientism choosing your favorite leader, rather than using your own brain to distinguish observable phenomena from the claims of your cult leader.
@@reason2463 Reasoning through the evidence does not mean the conclusion you have reached is your own or is based upon reality. Your world view will initially sift the evidence into two bins. The evidence you accept and the evidence you do not accept. In the end your conclusion is already pre-programmed to agree with your world view that existed at the very beginning of the exercise. An open mind is the only mind capable of changing their mind as new factual evidence arrives while the closed mind is locked into believing the same lies through perpetuity. I know Richard Dawkins operates through the closed mind mentality as his most recent conclusions illustrate and thus you are following in his footsteps. Not so amazing as the vast majority of humanity does the same, never questioning their own motives to either believe or not to believe. The unexamined life is not worth living just as is the unexamined mind.
@@reason2463These are the ppl who would never read a line in a book that crtiticize their ideas, then going around say that its an insult to Christ. But when someone else read the B then show the inconsistencies, contradiction and problematic parts, they'll say "you're taking it too literally", and start making excuses for their non-existent imaginary friend. Never let this kind have any authority over science. Ever.
Isn’t he simply discussing epi-genetics, which is already being heavily researched and I believe one of the most exciting fields in life studies? 7:21 Sure sounds exactly like epi-genetics to me
4:00 in the video Denis Noble sais something, that unveils him using a meaning of at least one of the following words ("selfish", "metaphorically", "choose") different from Dawkins (and probably most of us), when he argues against Dawkins' metaphorical expression "the selfish gene". The startling thing is, that right after that, Noble himself speaks metaphorically of the supermacromolecule genome as something that "has needs" to enable it to "live", "learn", "know" and also "choose"! Well, there seems to be some kind of error in his thoughts at least. Either that, or he is lacking of words to explain more precise. Another irritating thing from 10:00 on is that Noble argues against "dogmas". Well, dogmas are used by people that execute on the basis of a state of knowledge represented in the dogmas. They are used by medical doctors e.g. as working hypotheses, but they are never used by scientists themselves, as dogmas and science are not compatible. So he seems to go after some kind of straw men.
Posing a fragment, then sending people to the website to "watch the full episode" THEN CHARGING to access the full episode is misleading. Unsubscribed.
I suggest you use honest content as breadcrumbs for your paid service, not a cheap bait & switch trick to send people to a paywall. Choose something to post free, and / or mark excerpts as such. I've set UA-cam not to recommend you as a channel.
Hameroff, not Penrose. But I agree. Microtubules play a huge role in expressing and transferring genetic information. Life in my eyes absolutely interacts with fundamental space/time geometry to create a relativistic system in which our environment affects us and we affect our environment. Not our environment determining us. I think quantum properties of microtubules are the answer as to how nobles biological relativity functions.
@@markboggs746 I feel that if you have a moire gear involved, twisters and belts and motion then mathematics is where you put your questions. Hammeroff would need a basis of the unequivocal knowledge of Sir Penrose about how to proceed with such a quest
Dawkins does not claim individual genes or the whole genome has will power. He claims in a highly reductionist way that the chemistry triggered by genes including the regulatory or controlling aspects of the genome create the organism and then basically operate it. He does not claim to literally understand consciousness either nor to understand exactly how evolution worked from the very beginning of the existence of the universe. Noble is talking past all those things and being oblique about it. One can disagree reasonably with Dawkins about creation and God without denying his view of basic biology and how it works. To use the computer language analogy is absurd. IF a hormone level does not exist, THEN the following does not occur, ELSE it does occur,,,etc. That is still more of less true and Dawkins gets this. So what is the problem...Answer...There is no problem. Noble needs to get over the language issue. Dawkins means genes sort of act as IF they were selfish. That is it. So Noble needs to stop arguing about nothing.
Dawkins argues from a reductive view point genes are the basis of an organism and drives its characteristics Noble is arguing from a system approach that genes are in fact just switches and protein builders that it's the Whole organism and primarily the cell and it's interaction with its environment that actually influences the genes so one can't make a prediction from the gene sequence alone about health etc at least that's my understanding although I am not in anyway a biologist and I've simplified what is undoubtedly a very complex argument
@@Paulcolt13 youre using an open mind to hear what Dr Noble is saying yes, this alters the paradigm in biology but it is in a subtle way, you could argue he effectively predicted epigenetics but epigenetics only had to be rediscovered bc (and that is the wiesmann barrier part) the field as a whole took darwinism down a sort of pigeon hole and precluded the possibility that an organisms heritable genes could be altered outside the mutations that occur during reproduction. fundamentally this forces us to conceive of a more subtle evolution that can be altered by environment without population based selection. this SHOULDNT be so controversial considering we have many birth defects demonstrated to us by DuPont however the natural process is apparently far more subtle. To make a more empirical argument i will direct you to evidence of heritable drought tolerance in arabidopsis but, AGAIN, i shouldnt have to defend epigenetics if the field were not already detrimentally wed to the idea of rigid blueprints that can only be altered by the casino of survival.
Old news. Russian scientist Garyaev has done extensive research and experimentation in what he called "wave genetics" showing that the biological genome does not explain life and.... just look it up, there is lotsa interesting stuff in his works.
Of course it's old news, Denis Noble is old, he's been saying this for decades. Science happens extremely slowly and personally it feels like it's getting slower.
@@gregsutter1805 Probably because the answer would be "what about it?" Neither gene therapy nor mRNA vaccines necessary fundamentally change an organism into a new species or anything. Gene drive could be used to devastating effect, but the scope of RNA vaccines and Gene therapy are both extremely narrow as put into practice and very different from each other. Also, there's no such thing as "gene therapy vaccine". This is like saying "hamburger farm". They are totally different things. RNA vaccines work by specifically exposing living cells to mRNA that codes for a potential antigen of the target virus. The mRNA is simply translated by ribosomes into a peptide chains which, hopefully, fold correctly and into the shape of the antigen, like a part of a virus spike protein. This antigen is eventually detected by the immune system, but since there's no actual virus, the exposure is short in duration and nothing pathogenic/harmful to the cell is ever really present. Gene therapy works by targeting the genome of the host directly, similar to how a retrovirus works. As a matter of fact, modified retroviruses have been typically how gene therapy is conducted. this is obviously much more dangerous in its potential and there have been cases where oncogenes have been activated. Typically, gene therapy is used for very narrow genetic modifications, sometimes to targeted parts of the body. Tests are conducted ex vivo first and usually this means germ line cells are not targeted as viruses can target non-germ line receptors. Of course, germ line therapy is possible. combined with gene drive, this can lead to wide-spread effects on a population, such as forcible sterility in later generations, as an example. There is basically no possibility for the mRNA to have any effect on germ line cells from an mRNA vaccine. The mechanism of effect simply does not allow for it as the mRNA and the product of the mRNA are simply recycled or disposed of by the cells and body and the central dogma means nothing can go backwards into the genome since there's no extra enzymes or proteins in the vaccine. Gene drive, with the advent of CRISPR, is a whole 'nother story and has terrifying potential. If such technology is being weaponized, we likely would only find out only after it was already too late. Even then, the worst we could do perform "knock-out" gene or prion attacks, which is pretty horrifying to think about, but would not lead to accelerated evolution or super powers or anything like that.
Knowing Penrose, Hameroff, and Micheal Levins biofield work, this vomes as no surprise. In fact, considering Hameroff started publishing microtubule electronics in 1983, quite late to thd psrty.
@@rosesacks7430 I noticed some green 2 months ago and since i never had any green in my eyes i kept watching and still getting greener. Could be my diet no processed food no seed oils back to my high school weight. The rest of my family has brown or blue eyes.
Perhaps the answer has already been suggested but is to incredible to consider. An answer which answers Noble's complaint but also suggests the key to epigenetics which might be...get this....EXTERIOR to the organism. What is this answer ? The answer, it is true, moves the unknown to a different and unknown place, but it is an answer none the less. Morphic Resonance.
It’s rather unimaginative to conclude that genes aren’t essentially blueprints simply because they don’t contain logical conditional expressions as one might expect in an imperative set of instructions like a classical computer program. Misleading, even.
Listen to me I've been reading through the comments for about 10 minutes and you're the first person who literally said what the main argument should have been. I think he's confusing selfishness with consciousness and what consciousness plays in selfish motivations in organism. There are processes that could be construed as selfish from our point of view.
I remember another brilliant biologist who also struggled with understanding genes. He was Russian, his name was Trofim Denisovich Lysenko. Thanks to Stalin's protection, he managed to ban genetics from all Soviet Union Universities. Hopefully Trump will not do the same for Denis Noble.
Cool rebuttal, bro; so if I get what you're putting down here, if I want to refute Richard Dawkins, all it takes is for me to get down on a UA-cam comment section and compare him to Trofim Denisovich Lysenko, eh? Gee - thanks for the clarification on how the scientific method is supposed to work...
@zer0h0urs000 look up Lysenkoism and you will understand. Genetics describes a means of competition between individuals (or even genes) which is antithetical to communism. Communism believes that there will be one day an End of History when human beings distorted by competition (capitalism) are perfected into Socialist Man (perfectly social and noncompetitive). Thus Lysenko attempted to create a theory of biology that mimics communism. For example: making summer wheat grow in the depths of winter will turn the summer wheat into hardy, winter wheat; Another example: plants grown too close together actually produce more. Both examples are readily disproven. Lysenko's bone head idea contributed to the starvation of 50-100 million people in USSR and China. Ironically there are really some traits passed down in this way, but more subtly than just sticking a plant in a freezer to make it frost proof.
No. The problem is that he is identifying the wrong "extra ingredient". The lipids and membrane proteins are less complex than the genome, they don't work as his "missing processing".
I’m drowning, can I grow a gill to save myself,I think not. There is feedback to the genes caused by what the environment throws at us. It may influence the next generation slightly, but it certainly doesn’t allow us survive the stresses of a changing environment. You misinterpret what the phrase ‘selfish gene means. It is not akin to a human emotion.
The strain of information (intelligence) can only be contained by some kind of dual nature and one of these numerous dual natures is what we call life - which is the superposition of the evolutionary data (program) stored in the DNA, and the operational system of particles (matter) under which life is very apparently implemented and runs.
Read Ian Stewart's book "Life's Other Secret" - he basically lays out the same idea that the two halves of life are genes and the inherited metabolic networks from our mother's egg.
"Does your medical practitioner-your GP-read your C's, T's, A's, and G's in order to decide what to do with you? No. And never will." This is a foolish statement, considering technologies like CRISPR (more specifically, base editing), that can modify or correct precise regions of our DNA to treat serious diseases. We are already using it in agriculture. I lost interest in this lecture after this comment. Denise also seems to misunderstand what "selfish gene" even means.
Has the unique power of genes been overstated? Leave your thoughts in the comments.
Watch the full talk with a free subscription trial at iai.tv/video/biology-beyond-genes-denis-noble?UA-cam&
You should mention this video is incomplete and paywalled in the title :(
Did not expect click baitnes for you guys.. rest is behing a paywall
Douglas Adams' biological trilogy:
'Where Dawkins Went Wrong'
'Some More of Dawkins' Mistakes'
'Who is this Dawkins Person Anyway?'
@@TheInstituteOfArtAndIdeas Genes aren't selfish, but the gene centric view of life has been incredibly, incredibly useful.
@@TheInstituteOfArtAndIdeas sad that you don't let people see the full video. You claim "The charity funds the provision of live and online cultural events that seek to further the education, understanding and engagement of the public" but basically decided to use UA-cam as your advertising platform.
I have read and adored most of Dawkins’ books and recently read Noble’s ‘Dance to the Tune of Life’. Whilst I don’t fully endorse Noble’s repudiation of the gene-centric view of life, I think his work is fascinating and has a lot to tell us about the function of non-genetic, physiological actuation in regulating the cell and precipitating evolutionary development. To call him a charlatan or to outright denigrate his work is a perfect demonstration of the pig-headedness and dogmatic attitudes of those who unconditionally subscribe to the biological orthodoxy because they feel threatened by the prospect of a fringe scientist challenging someone as revered as Dawkins.
“Don’t take refuge in the false security of consensus.”
@@JackT13 For a bit of balance, you should check out Stephen Meyer’s “The return of the God Delusion”.
What is Noble's definition of purpose? I've heard a full hour talk with him on a podcast: but these more casual talks lack the clarity needed to connect the most important bits
Furthermore he's not revered because revered would imply that he is more than 50% popular in the general public opinion polls. Secondly pull your head out of his ask for a second and actually learn what the words you're trying to use mean.
The whole speech is based on a misunderstanding (seemingly wilfully) of Dawkins’ notion of the gene as selfish, which is an argument he makes from the perspective of natural selection. It seems obvious that Noble is desperate to be seen as important and the best way he could imagine to do that is to oppose Dawkins’ ideas, given the mass popularity of “The Selfish Gene”.
I can’t interpret his speech as genuine given nobody sincerely denies that epigenetic processes affect germline development. That understanding runs parallel to the notion of the selfish gene quite comfortably. Noble is just muddying the waters by contending with Dawkins’ point on the selfish gene in the context of natural selection. It’s disingenuous and wilful misunderstanding which is poor form in the field of science.
You truncate the video and then demand payment to see the rest??? You waste my time by not indicating it was a partial video? I'm not gong to follow your link after that cynical and manipulative technique. I was interested in looking further into the IAI before that tactic. Goodbye.
@@pan_cimrman What payment? I went to the site and watched a couple of the videos quite freely
@The144Kth
Yes there's a pay-wall I can't watch beyond the 5th minute.
You shouldn't do that to cut in two such an interesting information
The website they sent us to doesn't even play the video, its super laggy and takes forever to load. great way to annoy people.
Look at his pinned comment dummy.
The notion that genes are not the sole blueprint for life underscores the complexity of biological development. While genes provide essential instructions for building and maintaining organisms, they interact with environmental factors and epigenetic modifications that influence how genetic information is expressed. This perspective highlights the intricate interplay between genetic and non-genetic factors in shaping living systems. How can this understanding of the gene-environment interaction enhance our approaches to personalized medicine and disease prevention, and what implications does it have for future research in genetics and developmental biology?
How supremely annoying and counter-productive is this bait & switch video contrivance. I even went through the dishonest claim on the IAI site, that I could continue watching if I signed up for email, but I ended up at the same paywall obstacle on their website. Apparently there is no straightforward way to continue this video, although it seems money might solve that problem. After wasting my time trying to continue, I've learned something very important about the IAI -- they are comfortable to prioritize clickbait and bait & switch sales tricks over the science they claim to promote. Very disappointing. It's perfectly fine to erect a paywall for certain content, but not the way it's done by the IAI. They have thoroughly alienated me, and other comments show I am not alone in resenting this kind of manipulation.
@@conceptinterface Dr. Bruce Lipton, "Epigenetics"
He already GAVE u the main concept of the peer reviewed study in journal nature. The simplest way to say it is that they have PROOF now that EPIGENETICS is real and has a biological process, so logical conclusion is: heal yourself spiritually, mentally and physically BEFORE procreating. And then don’t damage the offspring once they’re born or the results will be in all the generations to come! You’re welcome.
Completely agree! Even though I would LOVE to enjoy some of the content they have, I refuse to support their tactics. It's really too bad.
me too, very dishonest. i'm out.
Well, they are not genes, so they can be selfish.😂😂😂
I clicked Your link to your website but once I accessed this video it repeatedly froze. . You should allow the entire video to play on your UA-cam channel so people can receive the knowledge and information instead of using it as a commercial teaser so that people are forced onto your deficient website.
what Dr Noble is trying to warn us of is the danger of using a computer programming language without understanding its compiler- biologists are philosophically focusing on the syntax of a language they haven't defined...
it's like saying the XOR operator is selfish, or a WHILE loop is selfish, loops are endlessly selfish in C++ but barely selfish at all in JavaScript...
I'm doing my best to try and fix that. 3D computation is what we don't do with computers. We've taken Knuth's complexity theory as permission to stack binary to a functional limit. Making protein coding deterministic in 2 dimensions is not possible. Water is the computational substrate of biology.
@@dsm5d723 Water is the computational substrate of biology. - What a sentence!
@@dsm5d723 kudos and godspeed, i know im not deep enough in to really be able to express this idea and am SUPER happy to come back here and see at least one professional benefitted from this synthesis!
I have to chime in on this... I don't think his assertion of no conditionals existing between nucleic pairs is correct. And he left out uracil if that matters. The purine adenine (A) always pairs with the pyrimidine thymine (T), and the pyrimidine cytosine (C) always pairs with the purine guanine (G). The conditional (if then) exists in their persistence of chemical behavior. If A encounters !T (c code) then don't pair. It is an intrinsic state machine... and all state machines are conditionals even if in a switched aspect (case). Thoughts welcome.
Denis and Michael Levin need to get together for a pod cast. They seem to be on the same wavelength. The genes don't contain instructions for morphology. And cells problem solve to achieve a goal, without a nervous system. (William James definition of intelligence.)
Yes, and Nick Lane. If you don't know his work, look it up. I've been posting proof of concept for a gene drive in the comments. The key is the relationship, in the "machine code" of water, between genetic information and bioelectricity. It's based on a structured water device. And genetics needs a 3D math paradigm that makes protein coding deterministic. It's all a lot simpler than most people would ever allow, or so it seems to me.
@@dsm5d723 Just watched a Nick Lane video. Very impressive. I hadn't heard of him so thanks for the heads up. For years I felt the scientific community had become "dogmatic" in regards to evolution, as if it were an open and closed case, which is just silly when you consider just how much we still don't understand about the process of life from a scientific standpoint.
this would be amazing if setup.
Cells are the true architects of life ✊
As usual, the vast majority of people in this comments section: have not studied biology at any university level, don't have any background in biology, have not published any papers in the field of biology, and have not done any proper research in the field. This is fine in itself. However, you all then seem confident to criticize / critique Denis Noble's theories, who is an actual, real and non-UA-cam expert in the field. The same people are philosophically biased towards Dawkins and are willing to discount theories they have not understood just to keep that up.
this is youtube...what else do you expect..really? any article will have a ton of dumb comments and a rare few smart ones.
And you , a salty commentator, what are your credentials?
Pascal, Edison, Galileo, Faraday, Ampere, and Einstein may think it is a mistake to assume only those with PhDs have value add contributions. Scientific elitism perpetuates bad ideas by creating an in group that pressures conformance to legacy theories. Autodidacts are the only innovative engine left in science.
Go give Ya head a wobble, wer you think you are Uni
You mean university Level like he Said " 60 years we learned Kids the false theory?"
Because most diseases are environmental and genes interact with the environment and we are still discovering many new properties of chromosomes, it does not mean that they are not the metaphorical blueprint, it is just more complex.
I agree. Just look at identical twins or even clones of other animals or selective breeding of given animals and how they match each other so closely: If anything the potency of genes/genetics will only become more vivid with greater understanding atst as the complexity of feedback-systems knowledge with genes grows also.
@@commentarytalk1446 the point is that they don't match each other that closely, especially in the case of clones. Dolly looked very different from her source, which emphasizes the importance of the environment. Even twins don't share finger prints because those develop in the womb and are likely a result of self-organization a la Alan Turing.
Noble's main point of contention is that the weismann barrier is nonsense.
@@snowballeffect7812 I met Dolly The Sheep as part of a study trip along with the scientist that led the work on her. The major difference was the artificial environment at the time which contributed to poorer health in her later years.
I think you're being very imprecise and vague to the degree of saying nothing of substance, when you state:
>"the point is that they don't match each other that closely, especially in the case of clones."
Goes against all the evidence, development will proceed via different variables but the same genetics is striking how well it matches across so many parameters.
@@commentarytalk1446 dolly was literally a different size and her bone structure was quite different. she also was found to have shorter telomeres and developed a progressive lung disease and arthritis, though it's uncertain if these diseases were a consequence of her being a clone or not. other clones also did not live as long, either since the technology is actually quite finicky and error-prone. It's simply a matter of fact which anyone with even a cursory experience in genetics would know. Why anyone who allegedly met Dolly (on a study trip, no less) would not know this is baffling. cloned cats, for example, don't even have the same fur patterns, let alone personalities. Many traits, like fingerprints in human twins as stated before and fur patterns as stated here, are a result of self-organizing chaotic feedback systems/fractals.
What is the point of being so incredibly defensive while being absolutely incorrect?
Since we can't watch the rest of the talk, we will all just have to imagine what he was going to say. Lesson learned: Don't click IAI videos.
Put his name in YT search bar you will find other videos.
When i was studying electrical engineering in college I remember a very interesting lecture a professor made. He mentioned that everything is about electrical potential differences, from your light bulb to your cells and muslce fibers. Since that day ive read so many books across multiple fields of study to see how my studies improved my ability to understand other concepts. Pretty cool. Journey of life is is to learn.
It's strange people accusing Noble of misunderstanding "Dawkins' theory". Gene-centred evolution is not Dawkins' theory, he is a populariser of it. Dawkins' magnum opus is probably the concept of the extended phenotype. Meanwhile Noble is a pioneer in mathematical biology. It's ridiculous that people take Dawkins as the be all and end all of biology simply because they don't know any other biologists - and then think they are being scientific by doing so!
@ValQuinn youre wrong though, Dawkins is one of the pioneers of the gene centered view of evolution.
@@jjaa5879 He is. And he's wrong.
@@jjaa5879 Dawkins has become inflexible, and that is not good science
The fact that environment can modify genes doesn’t refute the fact that it is through genes that we realize behavior and actions!
The "instructions change, but the instructions for each are also different to begin with. Perhaps also some instructions are designed to be easily altered where as some instructions are "hard wired"?
we often called it 'tune in' or 'adaptation'... or 'error occur'
A lot of bs, does he need the money that badly to mislead people this way?
you missed his point. It is of course through genes many biological functions occur. He is just removing the genes from their perceived role of having primary causation to everything that happens in the cell. Genes are not drivers, they are passengers along with the organism through the life cycle of an organism.
@@Elmirgtr let’s try another way. Two different organisms with different genes and same environment will have different outcomes. Genes are not mere passengers. It’s a combination of genes and environment that’s driving behavior.
Many Pranaams. By far the best words I have heard on Karma Yoga, and I can’t believe he spoke only for 15 minutes!
Click bait. You've been warned.
11:09 He says that after the encounter with the virus some of the genes mutate to create antibodies that will bind to the invader. That’s not what mainly happens.
• The idea that immune cells “mutate their genes” after encountering a virus might be a reference to the somatic hypermutation process, but this doesn’t happen immediately or solely in response to a new pathogen. Instead, it’s a refinement process that happens after initial recognition, aiming to increase the effectiveness of the antibodies being produced.
• The initial recognition of the virus is based on the existing pool of diverse antibodies generated by V(D)J recombination, not by mutating genes in response to the virus itself.
@@mikoajnalewaj1321 except a zillion viruses. They mutate dna and rna cause cancer
That phrase stuck out like a sore thumb.
Anayın A.M. MI
Biggest takeaway: the words “settled” and “science” should never be used consecutively in a sentence.
This is just a difference in perspective. The end result is exactly the same. A species resists diversity by rejecting the malformed, but the genes and their control mechanisms mutate randomly creating difference. Sometime the difference gives a survival advantage, but mostly it does not.
The issue is not that we cannot read a message in the genome but that something is a message only for the messenger. Information alone does not make a computer work.
Assuming we're talking organizational layers in matter here (physics is not chemistry is not biology, etc.) and rather than bottom-up, nature works top-down, then this would implicate there has to also be a layer above the top one.... This layer above the top-layer is the one that mind is in the process of figuring out. Meaning that all layers were also at one time getting figured out by mind as the layer above the aggregate of already explicated layers. Explicated meaning transferred from mind into matter. This is the relationship between mind and matter. The figuring out by mind pertains to weak emergence, while the transfer of the organizational layer into matter pertains to strong emergence. Homer's Odyssey is about this process involving weak and strong emergence. Odysseus' journey represents weak emergence, and when he reveals his identity to Penelope this represents strong emergence. Penelope and her consort use the pattern that Odysseus came back with to weave the fabric of matter with.
Brilliant!
Denis Nobel's argument is understandable. It is well known that in crocodiles sex of the progeny is determined by temperature of incubation of the egg. Eggs incubated at temp. around 30 degree C are female and those arnoud 34 degree are male.
Yes, but does that happen because by brute force the heat destroys a part of the genetic info, or because information is transmitted through the membrane via proteins channels? Your understanding lacks the scientific specify that his talk is attempting to convey. While even a farmer can observe what you described, it takes a scientist to explain why it occurs at a biomolecular level.
@@stevedoetsch Maybe even a farmer could type that better than you did? Scientific specify? You mean specificity? There is no need to belittle other people when you are tiny yourself.
I wanted to watch and learn as a newbie on this. But with the comments, it seems the video isn't complete.
So let me move to the next video on genome
Denis Noble is, in this area, brilliant.
How did you write six words and managed to have three grammatical mistakes. Did you go to school.
@@saltynutzz there's not one mistake, grammatical or otherwise. You must not know how to read.
@@saltynutzz 7 words. No grammatical errors. Proper punctuation. You cannot count apparently and certainly don't know grammar. In fact you made two grammatical errors and left out two questions marks. D- for you, grammar n*zi.
@@ferrantepallas It is not that it has grammatical mistakes, rather, the style is both too simple and ever-striving for a more complex one.
I will not rephrase, that's not my job. My duty is simply to point out that, by your comma placement, the sentence could've achieved more meaning and substance.
Why is this important? Because even the most mundane writing is writing, and, your writing *IS* *your writing*.
The totality of your perception and inquiry, internal and external, can be modeled like clay by the way you *think*.And by writing you declutter and arrange the fruits of your reason.
I dearly hope this will help clear any misconception or ambiguousness of your comment or any further reply.
Bless.
Start out in the middle of a sentence. Very professional.
I only watched this short video, not his entire presentation. I see his point about systemic control of the genome switch, but what is his final conclusion? I hope it's not that we can "think" ourselves to a better person.
Also, what he said about his mother's ovum is pretty fascinating. Is he saying that the ability to control the genomes lies outside the DNA strand in the ovum? Much to think about.
Dawkins ideas were obsolete as soon as Barbara McClintock was given her Nobel in 1983
How?
@@KOKOPIKOSS While McClintock's findings emphasize genomic complexity and regulation, and Dawkins focuses on the replicative success of genes, these views can complement each other by showing that some genes (like transposons) can be both dynamic and "selfish" in their behavior
@@Ganeshsharma1978 That doesnt make Dawkins ideas obsolete though...
Genetics and epigenetics work together for gene regulation. Not surprising at all
This guy totally wacked.
@@Zonydeep which guy?
I am a thinker..the one thing you don't have to learn to do .
Thinking can solve any answer that is not learnt.
I think that the answers lie in the trees and one day the learners will think this to.
It’s miraculous, preposterous and yet HERE WE ARE !! We don’t know much.
Fundamentally, the environment affects genes and in turn, genes control expression. So you can use genetic therapy and engineering to mod expression. Thus rendering this guy's point moot.
Fascinating! So what exactly *does* the egg cell do, that the genome cannot do?
@@meadish Noble's argument seems to be that the lipids that make up membranes aren't generated by DNA, therefore the egg is essential for "enabling" DNA to even exist to do its job of creating proteins...which are then incorporated into the membranes to regulate chemical processes.
Since the phospholipid bilayers form automatically, this in itself doesn't have to be encoded...
However the metabolism of membranes is regulated genetically.
The argument may have been: is the genetic material sufficient to build a whole living cell?
@@meadish the egg (secondary oocytes) cell contains most if not all of the mitochondria the fertilized egg will ever have. These mitochondria contain their own DNA. The egg also has a set of cytoplasmic proteins and RNAs that will become part of the fertilized egg.
Dennis Noble’s been arguing against the selfish gene for yeses now & every lecture he makes a strong case for selfish genes
Not really; which point does he make here to lead one to conclude that?
Might you elaborate?
What ?
Interesing. The 14 min version so far.
Perhaps Ive missed something... but I didnt see much so far that seemed 'new'. He says:
- genes have conditional behaviour,
- that can be triggered by the higher level structures they contain some sort of blue print to build,
- thus the environment - in the wideat sense - controls the genes, which in tuen build/instruct the building of the higher level 'things' which in turn may switxh gene 'paths' on and off.
So a feedback system, which bootstraps itslef and then which can be influenced to do different things.
All good. Is that new? Did anyone think that genes just had a single path they could followbin terms of their influence?
I mean we know there are embedded atavisms in there, old 'build plans' which arent mostly used.
For menthe question would be:
- does qnything he says detract feom the darinian model of how the gznes got there in the fiest place?
- is evolution by natural selection being challenged here?
More interesting for le is Michael Levins work. That seems to be genuinely ground breqking.
Partbof his thesis is that our genes create oroble' solving structured (cells for example ) that seem to genuinly to exhibit whqt might be called intelligence - within their limited environment, or problem space... to put it another way
Hozever Id be delighted if someone were to enlighten le if I have this wrong.
it is not so much a challenge of natural selection as the need to recognize it is only half the equation- imagine an organism that evolved to alter its offspring, like a queen ant, the idea that evolution is limited to natural selection is such a dogma that Dr Noble drawing a simple line from epigenetics to a recognition that genes are no more a complete program than a text file that might happen to be C++ or could just as easily be HTML or JavaScript- acting like we understand genetics while dogmatically adhering to natural selection as the sole means of evolution is like expecting a webpage you made in 2005 to work just fine on a modern browser and refusing to acknowledge that defining the browser will make it easier to read/write web pages.
Hence, it's not just the 'system' that's critical, but intelligence as well. Nagel, was right: the reductive naturalist dogma is wrong in its outright dismissal of teleology and intelligence in nature.
Oh you definitively got the spelling wrong 😅
What is intelligence in Nagel's view?
Non yo seeemn to haven got it’d most lye rights
Richard Dawkins did not choose the adjective ‘selfish’ to suggest that genes are wilful. While aware that the chicken-or-egg question has no satisfactory answer, he gave the less popular one to provoke the orthodoxy of the time.
It is neither true nor false that the Sun revolves around the Earth but it simplifies calculations if we take a heliocentric view of our planetary system. Similarly, a genecentric view can present a useful perspective, though it may upset the literal minded.
Like Quantum Physics needs hidden variables (?), Genetics needs hidden controls or controller: the trick, however, is to manage without this hypothesis.
@@colingibson7324 its either true or false , its just the point of refference that matters , you prolly saw that post on quora
@@geog26 the FRAME OF REFERENCE matters. Whatever quora is, some thinking happens independently of it. If we take the galaxy as our frame of reference, then the Sun and the Earth orbit their mutual centre of gravity.
"Selfish" is a misleading metaphor, even Dawkins admitted it. At best, it is a redundant metaphor. It just succeeded because it reads like a catchy "meme".
@@y37chung absolutely right
Sorry to just post and go, but I've said this myself many times already. For Chrissake, genes are blueprints for proteins, not traits necessarily--usually not. Maybe eye color, which might be where this misconception comes from. We know now about epigenetics, the subtle mechanism which turns genes on and off. The epigenetic mechanism represents an immensely flexible system that enables the organism full adaptability. I mean, think about how static a system in which traits are hard-coded more or less for the duration, would be. Not very adaptable.
Yes, and even eye color is a not fully determined by genes. There are blue eyes parents with brown eyes offsprings. Genes are just the start of a long pathway to get a particular trait.
You get it. Now what controls the Epigenetic changes? Our minds are one option, as are deeper networks of biology.
@@annunacky4463 it's almost certainly not our minds, at least not at any conscious level. the body has much more effect over our mind than the other way around, like how you can barely think straight if you have to go to the bathroom, are freezing, are in immense pain or under chronic stress. Both intrinsic, internal and external factors over short and long periods of time affect our bodies, which in term affects our mind and most of these process are not through the nervous system, but through hormones (endocrine system). These chemical signal pathways are what really control our biological systems from embryo to reproduction, taking care of our young and others and beyond.
@@saltynutzz You obviously know virtually nothing about molecular genetics. Genes necessarily encode for proteins via the processes of transcription and translation. Genes merely produce the polypeptide chains that fold into the native structures of respective proteins. The genetic code was produced through a co-evolutionary mechanism, where specific codons became associated with certain amino acids to produce an adaptive value. Epigenetics is not an outdated term; it actually refers to the addition of chemical tags that control the transcription rate of certain genes, and these mechanisms are highly variable based on various regulation pathways. We also have alternative splicing as a mechanism, where certain introns are removed in order to produce unique mRNA messages that encode for a greater variety of proteins. Thanks for demonstrating your ignorance of the subject. I hope that you study Biology and familiarise yourself with scientific concepts before spreading misinformation on the Internet.
@@annunacky4463 No, our minds do not control epigenetic changes. Learn Biology, for goodness' sake.
Prof Denis Noble long live
This like a people arguing whether Nature or Nurture is more important....
Both Genes and Proteins are Equally important and both directs each other’s evolution...
Jolly interesting. I might have to read up a bit more on this.
Finally. Russian scientist Sergei Saveliev has been writing about it for the past 20 plus years. Morphogenetic principles are at the bases, cells interactions, membranes tension controls when and what genes are turned on. The shape, morphology is primary.
I cannot pass judgement on the mathematics of genes, but I agree that there are factors that control the make up of DNA throughout your life. The types of "knowledge," my father passed on to me is different from my older brothers. By the time he conceived me at 36, he transfered a knack for the trades he trained for and practiced. My oldest brother, conceived when he was 29, has a more immature set of physical reactions toward the world at large. He also has always identified with values of his maternal Grandfather, which may explain some of the preferred behavioral and knowledge paths he has taken from conception.
read sometime ago that our energy powerhouses mitochondria actually came from our mothers, they are living organisms that have their own genes, i was quite amazed at the time
Actions we take in our life, the type of environment we live in, and the type of food and chemicals we ingest can switch many genes on or off through something known as EPIGENETICS. Curiously, the food our grandparents and parents chose to eat affects our own epigenetics to some degree.
I don’t think Noble understands Dawkins, and I will say that the combination of genes from two parents enables all of the processes Noble describes, and without that combination, nothing happens at all. So I will continue to consider Dawkins the authority on biology.
Whichever authority you choose, just acknowledge that your "science" is nothing more than choosing between authorities, aka, a faith. Until you are able to reason through what you have been taught you remain in the cult of scientism choosing your favorite leader, rather than using your own brain to distinguish observable phenomena from the claims of your cult leader.
@@stevedoetsch I’ve already reasoned through the evidence, Steve. And so has Dawkins. Your ad-hominem insults add nothing to the discussion.
@@reason2463 Reasoning through the evidence does not mean the conclusion you have reached is your own or is based upon reality. Your world view will initially sift the evidence into two bins. The evidence you accept and the evidence you do not accept. In the end your conclusion is already pre-programmed to agree with your world view that existed at the very beginning of the exercise. An open mind is the only mind capable of changing their mind as new factual evidence arrives while the closed mind is locked into believing the same lies through perpetuity. I know Richard Dawkins operates through the closed mind mentality as his most recent conclusions illustrate and thus you are following in his footsteps. Not so amazing as the vast majority of humanity does the same, never questioning their own motives to either believe or not to believe. The unexamined life is not worth living just as is the unexamined mind.
@@reason2463These are the ppl who would never read a line in a book that crtiticize their ideas, then going around say that its an insult to Christ. But when someone else read the B then show the inconsistencies, contradiction and problematic parts, they'll say "you're taking it too literally", and start making excuses for their non-existent imaginary friend.
Never let this kind have any authority over science. Ever.
"and without that combination, nothing happens at all. "
Genius...you mean if two people don't F -- nothing happens, thats a great new perspective.
Someone who got energy activated in his body knows biology is still needs to grow.people feel that like we feel our arm it's part of our body
Isn’t he simply discussing epi-genetics, which is already being heavily researched and I believe one of the most exciting fields in life studies? 7:21 Sure sounds exactly like epi-genetics to me
Long live IAI long live
Makes total sense, something should act as an sensor to do modification.
4:00 in the video Denis Noble sais something, that unveils him using a meaning of at least one of the following words ("selfish", "metaphorically", "choose") different from Dawkins (and probably most of us), when he argues against Dawkins' metaphorical expression "the selfish gene".
The startling thing is, that right after that, Noble himself speaks metaphorically of the supermacromolecule genome as something that "has needs" to enable it to "live", "learn", "know" and also "choose"! Well, there seems to be some kind of error in his thoughts at least. Either that, or he is lacking of words to explain more precise.
Another irritating thing from 10:00 on is that Noble argues against "dogmas". Well, dogmas are used by people that execute on the basis of a state of knowledge represented in the dogmas. They are used by medical doctors e.g. as working hypotheses, but they are never used by scientists themselves, as dogmas and science are not compatible. So he seems to go after some kind of straw men.
Thanks ideas
Only Members can listen to the entire Talk
😢
👍👍👍
Posing a fragment, then sending people to the website to "watch the full episode" THEN CHARGING to access the full episode is misleading.
Unsubscribed.
Thanks prof noble thanks
I suggest you use honest content as breadcrumbs for your paid service, not a cheap bait & switch trick to send people to a paywall.
Choose something to post free, and / or mark excerpts as such.
I've set UA-cam not to recommend you as a channel.
Thanks for uploading ❤
No. gene makes the culture. Culture make people
Denis needs to talk to Roger Penrose. Please?
Hameroff, not Penrose. But I agree. Microtubules play a huge role in expressing and transferring genetic information. Life in my eyes absolutely interacts with fundamental space/time geometry to create a relativistic system in which our environment affects us and we affect our environment. Not our environment determining us. I think quantum properties of microtubules are the answer as to how nobles biological relativity functions.
@@felicichris1369whatever is Hammeroff without Sir Penrose. Who consulted whom here.
Why not Penrose?
@@markboggs746 I feel that if you have a moire gear involved, twisters and belts and motion then mathematics is where you put your questions. Hammeroff would need a basis of the unequivocal knowledge of Sir Penrose about how to proceed with such a quest
Dawkins does not claim individual genes or the whole genome has will power. He claims in a highly reductionist way that the chemistry triggered by genes including the regulatory or controlling aspects of the genome create the organism and then basically operate it. He does not claim to literally understand consciousness either nor to understand exactly how evolution worked from the very beginning of the existence of the universe. Noble is talking past all those things and being oblique about it. One can disagree reasonably with Dawkins about creation and God without denying his view of basic biology and how it works. To use the computer language analogy is absurd. IF a hormone level does not exist, THEN the following does not occur, ELSE it does occur,,,etc. That is still more of less true and Dawkins gets this. So what is the problem...Answer...There is no problem. Noble needs to get over the language issue. Dawkins means genes sort of act as IF they were selfish. That is it. So Noble needs to stop arguing about nothing.
Dawkins argues from a reductive view point genes are the basis of an organism and drives its characteristics Noble is arguing from a system approach that genes are in fact just switches and protein builders that it's the Whole organism and primarily the cell and it's interaction with its environment that actually influences the genes so one can't make a prediction from the gene sequence alone about health etc at least that's my understanding although I am not in anyway a biologist and I've simplified what is undoubtedly a very complex argument
I think you mean obtuse and not oblique but interesting take.
@@Paulcolt13 youre using an open mind to hear what Dr Noble is saying yes, this alters the paradigm in biology but it is in a subtle way, you could argue he effectively predicted epigenetics but epigenetics only had to be rediscovered bc (and that is the wiesmann barrier part) the field as a whole took darwinism down a sort of pigeon hole and precluded the possibility that an organisms heritable genes could be altered outside the mutations that occur during reproduction. fundamentally this forces us to conceive of a more subtle evolution that can be altered by environment without population based selection. this SHOULDNT be so controversial considering we have many birth defects demonstrated to us by DuPont however the natural process is apparently far more subtle. To make a more empirical argument i will direct you to evidence of heritable drought tolerance in arabidopsis but, AGAIN, i shouldnt have to defend epigenetics if the field were not already detrimentally wed to the idea of rigid blueprints that can only be altered by the casino of survival.
@@ValidatingUsername both
@@Paulcolt13 You are correct but dawkins does not deny environmental input nor the idea of epigenetic occurrences,
How is this dude nearly 90
This only plays half the video and the other half is on their website which doesn’t play well. So forget it.
The exempt of the genome is a atom at a greater scale on the ottomicron of the enzyme of the atoms😊
Old news. Russian scientist Garyaev has done extensive research and experimentation in what he called "wave genetics" showing that the biological genome does not explain life and.... just look it up, there is lotsa interesting stuff in his works.
Of course it's old news, Denis Noble is old, he's been saying this for decades. Science happens extremely slowly and personally it feels like it's getting slower.
It is old news for scientist, but in public image : genes=everything. Which has a lot implications in medicine, society and politics
i love those who have the balls to do it differently..... i love real science
What switches the gene on ?
A authorized designer ?
denis nobles biological theories seem similar to bruce lipton... but i hear no mention of dr lipton on video or in comments
Great, one to billion. Thank you very much
What about gene therapy vaccine effects over the genome?
@@MrSpown1989 no reply, i wonder why?
@@gregsutter1805 Probably because the answer would be "what about it?" Neither gene therapy nor mRNA vaccines necessary fundamentally change an organism into a new species or anything. Gene drive could be used to devastating effect, but the scope of RNA vaccines and Gene therapy are both extremely narrow as put into practice and very different from each other. Also, there's no such thing as "gene therapy vaccine". This is like saying "hamburger farm". They are totally different things.
RNA vaccines work by specifically exposing living cells to mRNA that codes for a potential antigen of the target virus. The mRNA is simply translated by ribosomes into a peptide chains which, hopefully, fold correctly and into the shape of the antigen, like a part of a virus spike protein. This antigen is eventually detected by the immune system, but since there's no actual virus, the exposure is short in duration and nothing pathogenic/harmful to the cell is ever really present.
Gene therapy works by targeting the genome of the host directly, similar to how a retrovirus works. As a matter of fact, modified retroviruses have been typically how gene therapy is conducted. this is obviously much more dangerous in its potential and there have been cases where oncogenes have been activated. Typically, gene therapy is used for very narrow genetic modifications, sometimes to targeted parts of the body. Tests are conducted ex vivo first and usually this means germ line cells are not targeted as viruses can target non-germ line receptors. Of course, germ line therapy is possible. combined with gene drive, this can lead to wide-spread effects on a population, such as forcible sterility in later generations, as an example.
There is basically no possibility for the mRNA to have any effect on germ line cells from an mRNA vaccine. The mechanism of effect simply does not allow for it as the mRNA and the product of the mRNA are simply recycled or disposed of by the cells and body and the central dogma means nothing can go backwards into the genome since there's no extra enzymes or proteins in the vaccine.
Gene drive, with the advent of CRISPR, is a whole 'nother story and has terrifying potential. If such technology is being weaponized, we likely would only find out only after it was already too late. Even then, the worst we could do perform "knock-out" gene or prion attacks, which is pretty horrifying to think about, but would not lead to accelerated evolution or super powers or anything like that.
Gene teraphy and vaccine are tow separate things
wow, looks like they actively removed a bunch of replies lol wth. it still notifies me, though.
Knowing Penrose, Hameroff, and Micheal Levins biofield work, this vomes as no surprise. In fact, considering Hameroff started publishing microtubule electronics in 1983, quite late to thd psrty.
Good man.
Mathematical logic and statistical inference: Logicism, formalism or intuitionism (Kripke, Chomsky, Rorty)?
Early adopter, programmed valve tubes ... wearing shorts all day would be my guess.
You have come a long way, Dennis Noble...
Thank you, after seeing my own DNA (23 and me) I suspected there must be more, than listened to M. Levin I was sure three is more to physical life.
I had brown eyes for over 50 years and now genes for green eyes have been activated.
@@mrxatwork is this sarcasm?
@@rosesacks7430 I noticed some green 2 months ago and since i never had any green in my eyes i kept watching and still getting greener.
Could be my diet no processed food no seed oils back to my high school weight.
The rest of my family has brown or blue eyes.
Perhaps the answer has already been suggested but is to incredible to consider.
An answer which answers Noble's complaint but also suggests the key to epigenetics which might be...get this....EXTERIOR to the organism. What is this answer ? The answer, it is true, moves the unknown to a different and unknown place, but it is an answer none the less. Morphic Resonance.
Brilliant thanks
I'm high I thought that said Dean Norris for the longest time I've never been so disappointed to learn the truth
It’s rather unimaginative to conclude that genes aren’t essentially blueprints simply because they don’t contain logical conditional expressions as one might expect in an imperative set of instructions like a classical computer program. Misleading, even.
To continue click the link? Never! I'm here listening and you pull that BS? Channel blocked...
Thank you..
4:10 It is selfish. But sometimes it so happens that the selfishness of two species converge to such an extent as to make it selfless.
Listen to me I've been reading through the comments for about 10 minutes and you're the first person who literally said what the main argument should have been. I think he's confusing selfishness with consciousness and what consciousness plays in selfish motivations in organism. There are processes that could be construed as selfish from our point of view.
Richard Dawkins: hydrogen is selfish because it is the most abundant element in the universe.
A dare say he has a better understanding of the topic that you. The title was clickbait that the publisher liked.
@@carlhitchon1009 Learn to write first, son.
Knowledge should be free.
admirable, great
Genes do guide embryological development. Blueprint?
I love him so much
Search the answer in the role played by the pentagonal numbers for the formation of a group of symmetry.
I remember another brilliant biologist who also struggled with understanding genes. He was Russian, his name was Trofim Denisovich Lysenko. Thanks to Stalin's protection, he managed to ban genetics from all Soviet Union Universities. Hopefully Trump will not do the same for Denis Noble.
Cool rebuttal, bro; so if I get what you're putting down here, if I want to refute Richard Dawkins, all it takes is for me to get down on a UA-cam comment section and compare him to Trofim Denisovich Lysenko, eh? Gee - thanks for the clarification on how the scientific method is supposed to work...
@@zer0h0urs000 He/she is being sardonic: Lysenkoism was a pseudoscientific doctrine with disastrous repercussions to the Soviet economy.
@zer0h0urs000 look up Lysenkoism and you will understand. Genetics describes a means of competition between individuals (or even genes) which is antithetical to communism. Communism believes that there will be one day an End of History when human beings distorted by competition (capitalism) are perfected into Socialist Man (perfectly social and noncompetitive).
Thus Lysenko attempted to create a theory of biology that mimics communism.
For example: making summer wheat grow in the depths of winter will turn the summer wheat into hardy, winter wheat;
Another example: plants grown too close together actually produce more.
Both examples are readily disproven.
Lysenko's bone head idea contributed to the starvation of 50-100 million people in USSR and China.
Ironically there are really some traits passed down in this way, but more subtly than just sticking a plant in a freezer to make it frost proof.
lol what a stupid thing to say
@dominiqueubersfeld2282 Trump is your boogeyman, holy shite he doesn't control the universe. Let it go.
"Blueprint" is a bad analogy.
"Recipe" is a better one.
DNA's major role is guiding the process of embryology.
YES, YES, YES! Immediately put this on the front page and on CNN and NBC and FOX and BBC. ...using sound bites, of course.
No. The problem is that he is identifying the wrong "extra ingredient". The lipids and membrane proteins are less complex than the genome, they don't work as his "missing processing".
I’m drowning, can I grow a gill to save myself,I think not. There is feedback to the genes caused by what the environment throws at us. It may influence the next generation slightly, but it certainly doesn’t allow us survive the stresses of a changing environment. You misinterpret what the phrase ‘selfish gene means. It is not akin to a human emotion.
What does Dawkins say about this?
The strain of information (intelligence) can only be contained by some kind of dual nature and one of these numerous dual natures is what we call life - which is the superposition of the evolutionary data (program) stored in the DNA, and the operational system of particles (matter) under which life is very apparently implemented and runs.
Excellent 👍
Systems biology yes yes.
Read Ian Stewart's book "Life's Other Secret" - he basically lays out the same idea that the two halves of life are genes and the inherited metabolic networks from our mother's egg.
It’s called Epigenetics
i knew this all along by simple observations.
Wonder if he's related to Ross Noble
I think Mr Nobel has tried to confuse us. Dawkins remains the one talking science as far as I am concerned.
there is still so much more to discovered.
It requires a paradigm leap to get past even his first sentence. Try it.
"Does your medical practitioner-your GP-read your C's, T's, A's, and G's in order to decide what to do with you? No. And never will."
This is a foolish statement, considering technologies like CRISPR (more specifically, base editing), that can modify or correct precise regions of our DNA to treat serious diseases. We are already using it in agriculture. I lost interest in this lecture after this comment. Denise also seems to misunderstand what "selfish gene" even means.