Dawkins re-examined: Dawkins' legacy
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 чер 2023
- Dawkins re-examined
Dawkins' legacy
1st December 2022
Video courtesy of @TheInstituteOfArtAndIdeas
Dawkins' Selfish Gene has been hugely influential, both within evolutionary biology and in the wider public sphere. It's a beautifully simple story: genes and not organisms drive evolutionary change. But critics argue the story is simplistic. The effect of a gene is not always the same and as is dependent on its host and the cell environment. DNA does not come neatly divided into individual genes. And in 2010 the renowned biologist EO Wilson and others revived the case for group selection. Some are now arguing that the Selfish Gene paradigm is holding back medical research.
Is it time to move on and acknowledge that Dawkins' theory is not the whole story? Might his theory be making a fundamental mistake in reducing humans to machines? Or does the Selfish Gene remain a remarkably powerful and accurate account of who we are?
The Panel
World-famous scientist Richard Dawkins goes head-to-head with celebrated biologist Denis Noble as they lock horns over the role of genes over the eons.
Güneş Taylor hosts.
This video was recorded at the Institute of Art and Ideas' annual philosophy and music festival HowTheLightGetsIn. For more information and tickets, visit howthelightgetsin.org
IAI TV videos are for personal use only. For commercial or educational licensing please contact the IAI.
Video source: iai.tv/video/the-gene-machine
This is how intelligent, knowledgeable and men of integrity debate.
Don't assume their gender.
A dignified debate about the relationship between the gene and the organism. No shouting just mutual respect.
He’s 86 and perfectly recalled lines out of a book published in 1946.
That’s amazing I’m itself.
I desperately hope I’m as lively and articulate at age 86 as Dennis.
I loved how youthful and useful Sir Denis looked. In stark contrast, Sir Richard was visibly and audibly disturbed to what Sir Denis was saying. This to me, was quite surprising, given how Sir Richard always boasts about how science loves asking questions and challenging truths. His truth was challenged and he didn’t act quite like a scientist.
As most people in the comments are evidently ignorant of evolutionary biology, I will explain the nature of this debate briefly:
The debate between Dawkins and Noble is a complex one, where neither is "getting schooled" by the other. What a nonsensical thing to suggest. They are both highly influential biologists with different views on how evolution works.
Dawkins represents the more popular and dominant idea of modern synthesis, which combines Darwin's theory of natural selection with Mendel's theory of genetics. He believes that genes are the units of inheritance and evolution, and that natural selection is the only mechanism that can explain adaptive complexity. He rejects the idea of Lamarckian inheritance, which is the idea that organisms can pass on traits that they acquired during their lifetime to their offspring.
Noble proposes the idea of Lamarckian inheritance as another of many factors that influence evolution. He argues that there are multiple mechanisms of inheritance and evolution, and that some of them involve feedback loops between the genome, the organism, and the environment. He also rejects the idea of gene-centric causation and proposes the principle of Biological Relativity, which states that there is no privileged level of causation in biology.
Most biologists agree with Dawkins, as modern synthesis is still the dominant theory in biology. However, the idea of Lamarckian inheritance is on the rise slowly, due to some recent discoveries in the field of epigenetics. Some researchers have suggested that epigenetic changes can be inherited across generations and affect evolution. Dawkins rejects that idea.
Some examples of other biologists who criticize Lamarckian inheritance and agree with Dawkins are Jerry Coyne, W. Ford Doolittle, and Eugene Koonin. Some examples of biologists who support Lamarckian inheritance are Eva Jablonka, Marion Lamb, and Michael Skinner. And then there are also some biologists who are "in the middle", like E.O. Wilson who accepts epigenetic inheritance but does not buy into Lamarckian inheritance playing a big factor in evolution.
Now, please, keep the Dawkins- and/or Noble-bashing to yourself. I'm betting that none of you commenting this nonsense are actually biologists, let alone would survive a biological debate with either of the two gentlemen.
What team are you on? I think nobels interpretation makes more sense since it doesnt exclude dawkins theory which appears to be pretty concrete on the macro scale but nobel pays more respect to the micro scale principles of epigenetics and the environment's effects on genes outside of random mutations resulting in a benefit (propagation) or detriment(death/not reproducing).
I’m not a biologist but the logical conclusion seems to make more sense than Richard’s. Creatures have to react to their environment and adapt like growing hair or sweating to regulate heat and on a longer term changes.
Which position seems more likely to be correct?
@@nycsfinest4712 Lamrkian's notion of adaptation is more correct than the selfish gene concept from my understanding. Our survival is from the outside in, not from inside out. Genes react to our demands to survive.
Not a biologist , but it seems that epigenetics will have a bigger role in evolution in generations to come due to advancement in science but so far the selfish genes have played the main role .
This is what I like about the science. There is open debate and the opportunity to discuss ideas. If you are wrong, you are wrong and we move on with a better understanding of the world. Unlike many religious people, who recoil in horror at any hint of non-compliance with their dogmatic, often objectively wrong claims. Time will tell who is right, when more evidence is gathered and analysed.
so evolution might be wrong?
Yes. It seems unlikely given the amount of evidence we have but one should never be so arrogant as to think we can never be wrong. @@JudeKnowsWhatYouDoNot
🙄
We move on yes, but not before fans and blind devotees of "rock-star" scientists have ridiculed, humiliated, shamed, poured scorn on and insulted and discouraged sane people from opposing viewpoints / ideologies advocating perfectly logical commonsensical alternative theories. And yes, after having also destroyed the careers of some of them. It's like beating the [...] out of a guy and then saying, " o sorry, you are not the guy we were after. Let's move on. That's the greatness about us guys. We admit it when we are wrong. We are so unlike religious people!!"
UA-cam at its best. So educational, so inspirational, so exemplary. A beautiful discussion between two beautiful minds.
Dawkins is a mediocre.
I can't believe a man in his mid 90s is still that sharp !
He is amazing
He is 87 yrs old.
I don't see anyone schooling anyone here. Just two friends who respect and admire eachother having a discussion. And how brilliant it is that we can witness great minds talking about big ideas. Thanks for sharing.
It’s fantastic to see such an enlightening conversation between two intellectual giants. Fascinating! Amongst other things it shows that two people can have opposing views and still be friends.
@@Ian.Does.Fitness And in today's culture I think that's the greatest lesson people can take from such discussions.
@@JoshWiniberg Indeed! It was so good to see two people so brilliantly articulating their ‘arguments’ in such a skilful, edifying way whilst being so respectful of each other and their obvious body of knowledge on the subjects covered.
Denis was Dawkins’ PhD examiner
Dawkins has said publicly that he dislikes having moderators. I think this lady would probably be an exception. Well done.
And did you see how fucking gorgeous she is 😅
It’s just sooo wonderful to listen the arguments between 2 geniuses in science. I only hope that there will be the same talk between 2 different religion as calm and human as this.
Respect to Dawkins for doing this… Dawkins has long been passed by in this field and it showed.
Brilliant conversation. Thank you.
thanks you for uploading the whole thing, this definitly needs to be out there without a paywall
Wonderful and thought-provoking conversation! I'm just glad they're still around to have these amazing debates 😁
"...which is a wonderful book except that it's wrong." Dawkins has such a great way of making people like him through his confidence.
"...and that is how it's done. Fabulous!" Exactly. Thank you!
These are two very smart and wise men who have studied their subjects for decades! Wow!! fascinating and educational!! Hope this inspires the students!!
Respect!!
What about dawkins was intelligent? Dude literally got schooled constantly and was embarassingly ignorant.
@@dadush4 No! if you are a serious student in these fields, and not just a passersby who wouldn't care any more than for a lazy philosophical abstraction from an argument, then you wouldn't say that!
@@bluesque9687 really? Being presented with a paper that promotes neolamarkian ideas after confidently and arrogantly insisting it doesnt exist and post-proof still insist on random words as if you know what the hell is going on??
Please. You re just a sheep. Baa.
What can I say, Denis Noble you are a brilliant Biologist, for a man of 86 years you have an incredible capacity to recall so much relevant information with great accuracy. I could listen to this man for hours.
Dawkins on the other hand is a different kettle of fish. No matter how many times he contradicted Noble he was quickly put in his place.
All in all It was most entertaining and edifying to say the least.
Thx for uploading this 👍🏾
I just discovered Noble and I love him
Scroll down for people not discussing the issue.
Someone correct me if im wrong here: Essentially everything Noble points out here, can be eventually reduced down to "Well what mechanism in the body makes it turn on and off different functions in genes? The rest of the genes". So its just genes all the way down, which still falls completely in line with the idea of "the selfish gene".
Watch again I think your missing the point.
According to you , if all the rest of the genes would do it then why are they mutating for you, if they are sufficient ? Just lack of information !!
Uhhh, hit the rewind button buddy
Dennis speaks the language of real science and Richard tries to defend something that has many errors.
Well put.
It's a bit like watching a debate between Einstein's relativistic mechanics vs. Newtonian mechanics. He is not completely wrong, just that there is now a more general theory which encompasses the old and does away with some of the flawed older hypotheses thanks to excellent molecular biologists like Denis Nobel and his collaborators.
It is quite impossible to readily jump to conclusions that the microbiological or the embriological approach to determining the types of genome and the organism are the carrying agents in the Evolutionary process...Kudos to Mr Dawkins for giving us the insight in the gaps in the approach of Mr Dennis's conclusions in Evolutionary process...Fantastic discourse...Unforgettable
Massively fascinating!
Incredible debate by 2 real titans of evolution and science a privilege to watch, hope people pick up on Kinesin protein's walking on microtubule and their function which really is the genesis of biology, thanks TiMMoTEuS for a excellent upload.
Brilliant discussion…
Lovely debate…..
The very best of science! Wow! When Richard asks Denis to sign his book is unbelievable! Imagine two religious people having this kind of debate!
Denis is great, but he seems a bit confused about the conclusions he draws from certain evidence or study!
why would religious people not have respectful debates? What kind of picture do you have about religious people?
Mayr rejected the idea of a gene-centered view of evolution and starkly but politely criticised Richard Dawkins's ideas:
The funny thing is if in England, you ask a man in the street who the greatest living Darwinian is, he will say Richard Dawkins. And indeed, Dawkins has done a marvelous job of popularizing Darwinism. But Dawkins' basic theory of the gene being the object of evolution is totally non-Darwinian. I would not call him the greatest Darwinian.
- Ernst Mayr,
Mayr insisted that the entire genome should be considered as the target of selection, rather than individual genes:
The idea that a few people have about the gene being the target of selection is completely impractical; a gene is never visible to natural selection, and in the genotype, it is always in the context with other genes, and the interaction with those other genes make a particular gene either more favorable or less favorable. In fact, Dobzhansky, for instance, worked quite a bit on so-called lethal chromosomes which are highly successful in one combination, and lethal in another. Therefore people like Dawkins in England who still think the gene is the target of selection are evidently wrong. In the 30s and 40s, it was widely accepted that genes were the target of selection, because that was the only way they could be made accessible to mathematics, but now we know that it is really the whole genotype of the individual, not the gene. Except for that slight revision, the basic Darwinian theory hasn't changed in the last 50 years.
- Ernst Mayr, 2001
Finally this is coming to light.
Oh, thanks for uploading this!
The part cannot hold the whole, hence the holistic approach makes more sense. The parts have their merits of course, but the whole defines a purposeful system - the essence of existence. Still a long way to explore - eg. the effects of non physical on the physical itself expands the boundaries of a holistic system. Stimulating discussion, and yes civil & eloquent too 😊
not sure what to make of this by the end. interested to read opinions of biologists watching this. do recent findings raise doubts about a gene's eye view or from an evolutionary perspective these new mechanisms still wouldn't be significant?
this is a very important distinction
So im half way through the video, and if i understand the discussion well then basically a combination of Dennis and Richard ideas would mean that theres an extra layer on top of natural selection as described by Darwin the layer is that earlier organisms themselves shape the direction in which evolution will happen, not just the environment or chance. Therefore one might say that if say lizards never appeared in the evolutionary tree (but a closely similar organism did nevertheless) then the remaining branches of that tree would be significantly different than if they did appear. Therefore, thanks to the fish for all the decisions it took we came about. Extrapolating more, this shows how intricately tied life is to the environment, and if life was to appear on another planet, it will have to have most of the features adapted to that planet, i say most because the rest could be an adaptation to the universe at large.
all that they are saying is:
Denis: "i think DNA reached a point where it has the intelligence to beneficially change itself to its environment within a human lifetime without the need of natural selection"
Richard: "i think DNA either changes randomly or not at all within a human lifetime"
They can literally just test it because only 3 results are possible, either the DNA doesn't change within a human body, it does change randomly or it actually has the intelligence to change beneficially.
its one of these 3 options and all we have to do is run some tests to see which of the 3 it is and we have the technology to run these tests already so just do it and look at the results smh
The discussion is quite technical and based on huge amount of informations and data but it can be summarized in egg-chicken cycle or gene-organism and who is affecting who?
The debate ended when it really started to get interesting.
Not only Lamarck but Lyssenko is back😢
I could not help but think that if Noble is right Lamarck was right too 😅. But he makes a very compelling case though.
it is a good sign when the person A summarizes the position of the person B and the person B is nodding enthusiastically.
What is the name of Denis´s colleague mentioned in 25th minute? Please...
I may be wrong, but I think he mentioned Dr. Richard Tsien and Dr. Anant Parekh
@@rsovat yes that's correct.
10:00 Fascinating, but nuts. Unfortunately, I need to think about this in terms of Judea Pearl, and that's never a quick path to a hot take, so my more specific comment will have to wait.
Incredible to think that human beings have reached the point of scientific advancement to be able to write down with pen and paper the very code that makes us, us.
Dawkins may worry that he has a lot to loose. But his contribution is recognised despite biology inevitably moving on.
Two veteran heavyweights very carefully slugging it out in the ring. Didn't understand much of that but the conclusion brought together the conflicting themes beautifully. I think Noble was right to be broad minded and I think Dawkins was right to be cautious
The war of words on genes vs organisms.
Both giants are not trying to win the arguments but trying to learn what was missing in their understanding. The same goes for those listening to them as what matters at the end is learning not competing in ego.
I think Richard Dawkins makes more sense to the information postulated, while the other side seems to be not sufficient in convincing otherwise. Though the claim is fascinating, let's say which way the wind blows in the future. I can't imply that RD is always right and can't be wrong in his research as this is the beauty of science that it gets changed whence the information surpasses the previous one.
Genes are the building blocks. I 'The Selfish Gene', read thrice, even though I am not a science student, it's written in such an effortless language, I was able to grasp the information: genes are everything and our bodies are their hosts. Our children are then new hosts, and this is how we live for good.
Saying that organisms are the driving force for the genes that later bring changes to the whole scenario, which needs a lot of elaboration with evidence and proof.
To sum up, genes and organisms work in a system to cause what they are supposed to.
Thank you for reading.
Noble was quoting research all the time to support his position.
@@aoknoor9395 Yup, he is but without concrete evidence. His claim is worth considering as I have written in my comment. Deductive reasoning and the premises posed demanded a clear investigation...
Wittgenstein helps folks navigate through these paradigms pretty damn easily. But of course Dawkins and company like to shove off philosophy as “ancient.”
Um. Yes. Word games, basically. Pivoting from one game to another and using words that shouldn’t cross-over.
@@bn2870 As a religious person, I love reading about science, and RD was the first one who created in me the seed of science. As time wore on, my belief was cemented by reading the science wonders. I wonder how people go astray just by reading about science, which is just one example of the finest knowledge!
How things work is the crux of science, while the WHY question still remains untapped. Saying that I DO NOT KNOW makes the person curious, humble, and wise. David Berlinsky in one of his books said that science without religion is lame, and religion without science is blind - if I am quoting right.
Life is for once, unknown so far, is the survival game of human beings to know its veracity.
Thank you for reading.
The ending was beautiful😂😁
Wow, such an amazing exchange. This is the British way.
Colonialism is the British way 😂
It seemed to me that this was a discussion between two people who were both "correct", The genes run the evolution game and the cells, gemules, tubules etc take care of the daily problems. - but I am only a metallurgist (retired). I enjoyed and followed the whole discussion.
Wow! Lammark is back!! To some extent
(preface, this is part me trying to further understand the concepts here, so do forgive and correct any misunderstandings)
I think that's what should be the focus here: to an extent. Dawkins was right towards the end when he was stating that people may believe in the reality of the improper parts of the concept.
From what I've gathered of the talks I've listened to by Dennis (I intend to get the book when I have money!) Is that the organism selects from what is available, and this may also allow for recombination of the available information (the hyper mutation).
Continuing with his book example, it is very much like handing down a cook book to your children. The basic information (the genetic coding passed down over time that is fundamental to pull from to even create the organism) for how to make a meal is there, and of course must be passed down as directions, but there are other pathways.
My understanding with the heart rhythm example is that the organism itself will take what is available to recreate directions to make this still possible, as the entirety of the organism (we are more than just "I/we," aren't we?) Knows it needs the heart beat.
This is my basic understanding of the concepts.
Actually I think saying Lamarck is back is a bit of a stretch. Stretching your neck doesn’t create genes that make your neck longer that you can pass to your offspring. But the great discovery is that external factors can select which genes can get passed on. This is a bit different from natural selection where you have to die to extinguish your genetic legacy and the “more fit” brothers of yours survive to pass the “fitter” genes.
I'm not a biologist, so I won't pretend to have an opinion on all of this. But I will say that I didn't expect such an entertaining debate on this topic!
The idea has entered my head and now it won't leave. Denis Noble is Dawkins' real-life Ogden Wernstrom. 😂
This talk might be a historical one.
So many deeply stupid comments.
I can only understand the stupid comments. ☹️
Just don't come here. Easy
Agreed. Including a bunch of creationist nonsense.
I’m not sure this went anywhere. But it’s more likely that I wasn’t able to keep up
The reason why this debate was so civilized, is simply that the two gentlemen know what they are talking about.
A debate usually turns "uncivilized" is that one, or both, don't really know what they are talking about.
Actually, Dawkins for instance, have been engaged in uncivilized debates.
What Mr. Nobels says doesn't contradict the main point of Dawkins selfish-gene-theorie.
Nobel is trying to be facetious by referring to Lamarck. Amazing gesture by Dawkins at the end.
Denis Noble's points are fundamentally incompatible with Dawkin's neo-Darwinism. Noble's arguments are evidence based and tied to cutting edge experimental observations. Even the evidence based point that particles can carry RNA into the germline can't be accommodated by Dawkin's approach which, like most dogma, has really not stood the test of evidence based time.
@@GarethDaviesUK Dawkins already explained that both temporary changes to the germline AND mechanism-dependent permanent changes to the germline don't impact neo-Darwinism at all. How were you so lost during the conversation that you didn't realise that...
A wonderful scientific debate cut short by the blind timekeepers.
You do know that venues for debates like this are rented for a very specific timeframe right?
In this occasion Dawkins was outsmarted by Noble, especially in respect to diffulties in establishing well-defined connections between genes and phenotypes, in most cases, and to recent evidence of possible germline genetic modifications which could rehabilitate Lamarck ideas. The only thing which - I think - can be a true mistake by Noble is the use of the phenomenon of sexual selection to support Lamarckism.
UA-cam commenters think Nobel is somehow more convincing must be completely ignorant of basic DNA biochemistry... What Nobel said are true, but I find them hardly convincing towards his argument for the debate.
Yeah he's an expert on using irrelevant arguments.
Fortunately, Richard was there, otherwise, he might not have been able to talk very much.
I do like the conversation and the idea that utility plays such an important role. I just wish Dawkins could speak a little more because I think he of course has refutations were it not for his good manners.
That’s because Dawkins knows that Noble has a sharp mind. I was amazed at how easily Noble recalled facts.
I feel that mystery of mitochondria are far more important than DNA.
Denis is saying the passing of the germ line is not certain but optional depending on the circumstances. This is inline with observable phenomenon in our lives.
isnt it funny that darwin also studied under lamarck
“the more you know, the more you know you don’t know” - Aristotle
“as for me, all I know is that I know nothing” - Socrates
Both discovered the gaps they have and it gives them opportunity to roll up their sleeves and co-create sustainable solutions for human development 🇿🇦
"It's getting hot in here", says one fruit fly to the other... 😁👍
Paul Whitehouse and Harry Enfield.
Was thinking exactly the same Whitehouse on the left ..😂
That’s how science was done.
Interesting topic in which both speakers are correct. The DNA codes for RNA and proteins that help it to multiply and survive intact while there are over 30 biochemical processes that feed back on DNA to control gene expression and often silence it.
Dawkins is most correct because the smallest living thing on Earth is the Cadang Cadang coconut viroid at 246-7 RNA nucleotides long. All it does is use the coconut cell's substrates and molecular machines to reproduce itself by a templating mechanism and does not code for anything but itself. Naked in the environment it could potentially reproduce on volcanic glass as a catalyst by using nucleotides broken down off its neighbour viroids or other detritus.
That's the linear theory. But then why stop at that? Why not go more fundamental at the level of Quatmtum Mechanics, where is now clear that essential biochemical processes wouldn't be possible without quantum tunneling.
@@ishyandmikkischannel8811 To my mind quantum tunnelling is a term that tries to explain the phenomenon of particles often penetrating barriers. This is something best explained by photons and other tiny particles like neutrinos and electrons occasionally " missing everything " in their journey through a barrier. Sorry , but I don't believe in field theories, only particle theory.
@@baraskparas9559 Ex theotetical physicist here - quantum fiieĺd theory soecialisation in fact. Particĺes don't exist in the sense that you think - they are excitations of quantum fields. You won't even understand how and why a light bulb switches on if you don't realise that fields are fundamental. Further, the reverse proton gradient mechanism for ATP is likely imppssible without quantum tunneling. It's very easy to see that you haven't been exposed to either research level quantum theory, or an investigation into biochemocal processes, or nonlinear systems. If you get to understand these you will begin to realise that Dawkins is still in kindergarten.
Two of the greatest minds of our time, proud to be British, If Dawkins was Catholic he would be a Nobel, Denis Noble not as well known but equally splendid.
Dawkins is not a "great" mind. He's a pathetic wannabe philosopher.
@@martam4142 you are joking.
I guess I don't know enough about the matters discussed here, but I'm having a really hard time following Noble's arguments. He says several times that Dawkins is right with with his theories, up to a point, but then never clearly spells out about what he thinks Dawkins is wrong or what's missing. Who can help me to understand?
very scientific "chicken or egg" debate.
Facts ( with in science) always change with better experiments and new data. The reason people adapt them late is, the new data conflicts with thier world view ,so they continue to hold on the old one( Neodarwinian).
N.B I meant if its only true that we have a new data that physiology has that much effect.
Lamarkianism.. No this was disproved a long time ago as a fundamental long term evolutionary mechanism!
Neolamarkism is a thing
24:20
Even for UA-cam, these commenters are nuts
5:30
I have some trouble with understanding how "lamarck is back" by what Noble said. Seems Dawkins had too. Am i missing something or did he not explain it well enough?
Well, the thing with epigenetics is that some changes in DNA, occurred after an organism is born, somehow reach the reproductive cells and, so, get transmitted to the next generation. That is, acquired characteristics get transmitted, which is Lamarckism basically.
Now I have always seen evolutionists like Dawkins and Pinker unimpressed by this, for it seems those acquired characteristics (via epigenetics) are far from relevant or durable enough to have any evolutionary significance. It's not like I get stronger via fitness, then my DNA is changed encoding that strength and, on top of that, my sperm is changed accordingly. That would be full blown Lamarckism. It rather seems that some kinda arbitrary changes reach the reproductive cells, and don't last 2 or 3 generations. Or so I heard (and believed) from evolutionists.
But Denis Noble is saying here that recent evidence suggests a far more powerful Lamarckist mechanism going on.
I remain skeptical. It would seem evolution would be crazily faster if something like that actually happened. But who knows.
Actually they are both right, in a way, but they didn't realised that. DNA designs the cell, and it designs it in a way so that it can change it's coding according to the outside environment. So the change in DNA can occur even before it transfers to next generations.
Who had to leave??
Very interesting, as far as I could understand . But could you call your book ' The selfish gene' as if it has some kind of personality?
'There is more evidence for devolution than for evolution' - Derek Prince, King's College Cambridge.
'There is not the creative spark needed for me to believe in evolution' - John Lennox, Oxford University.
John Lennox!?🤣🤣🤣
Well, to be fair, Denis Noble and Richard Dawkins know much more about evolutionary theory and nature than John Lennox and PASTOR Derek Prince.
I think you'll find Faraday was a Christian- oh and so were these numerous scientists: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology#:~:text=transfinite%20set%20theory.-,J.%20J.,He%20was%20an%20Anglican.&text=Giuseppe%20Mercalli%20(1850%E2%80%931914)%3A%20Italian%20volcanologist%20and%20Catholic%20priest.@@RevanX
Mixing different races produce beautiful and healthy, long living people.
The bigger the gene pool, the better the outcome.
No racial or ethnic distinction is the way to go.
We, in the tiny Netherlands, are the prove of that.
Eh, okay. I think most biologists would say that there are no human races.
noble knows his stuff, dawkins seems a bit outdated.
@zebec9117 do not tell this dawkin's acolytes. they might not like that and react rather unscientifically
Examples?
@@LITRLG0D for what?
so if i understood this correctly what was said in the video was:
denis: "dna changes during a human lifetime beneficially to its environment and these changes get passed on"
richard: "not on this planet, maybe on other planets"
i personally would just ask: "okay which changes get passed on and at what intensity"
i mean, we shouldn't even have to argue at this and just look at the evidence. we can just check our DNA at 3 years old and then another time at 50 years old and see if the DNA somehow changed beneficially to its environment over time. it will either change beneficially, change randomly or won't change at all. so lets do some tests and look at the results and we have our answers no need to argue if we can literally just look at the results after doing these tests
I think you focused on the wrong detail but do correct me if you think im wrong cause im not scientist, denis is saying choices like for example lifestyle is communicated to the cells to potentially modify its genes and get it passed along if the modification proves useful
richard is saying that its not, genes only get passed on based on survival and that the selfies nature of genes (natural selection) causes advantageous genes to naturally out compete non advantageous genes thats why changes in a gene that don't survive for long are irrelevant
For me I think people are taking this debat too emotionally because of the implications it has on choice on top of people who hate richard for his god delusion book and some people implying that denis ideas have more wiggle room for the soul but really the debate was very civil, scrutinising ideas are normal and important for the scientific process
@@user-li8nm8nz9b which is tbh. really not usual for him, he obviously respects Noble. I don't think Richard is only hated because of his book, or his contributions, he is probably more hated because he is almost religious in his anti-religious rhetoric, and it is easy to dislike a person who acts humble but is obviously full of himself, which becomes obvious if you are not behind his atheism causes. Probably deists dislike him of simpler reasons, but he gets enough dislikes from atheists as well, who have no interest in meta debates about religion. Dawkins at times sounds like a Creationist who happens to not believe in Creationism.
The host.🤖💯💯💯
Denis Noble has a great holistic understanding of biology. Dawkins seems to be too full of himself and too boxed out and stuck with his 30 year old himself.
both are pretty old and slow, the entire conversation could have just been:
Denis: "i think genes change beneficially during a human lifetime and these beneficial changes get passed on"
Richard: "i think genes either change randomly or not at all during a human lifetime and don't have the intelligence to make beneficial changes to themselves"
Denis: "how about we just test it and check the results, only 3 results are possible: either the DNA changes beneficially during a humans lifetime, randomly, or not at all"
Richard: "okay lets do some tests and check the results Denis!"
thats how science is supposed to work
Exactly....it's systems non linear thinking vs simple mindedness. Dawkins might be a scientist but he is very close mind and has no scientific inquiry of a good scientist.
@@HeisenMannjPop-science writer. NOT an scientist.
👍
❤
Dennis was Richard's examiner!
That was mentioned in the video. The one this comment thread is a part of on UA-cam, seen (and heard/read) by thousands.
2:07 lol😂
This discussion needs a bit of Michael Levin 😉
Dawkins's simplistic dogma about the gene being the driving force behind evolution is dying.
And he knows it. He is increasingly desperate. Dawkins has explained that his only regret about eventually dying is to miss out on the development of science and technology. He should perhaps be careful what he wishs for...
That’s too bad, because honesty doesn’t sell.
Talk out of your ass much? There is nothing upending anything he said. All science supports his views and even Denis is laughing in agreement with the things he says that shows his work is wrong. That is the difference between Denis and people like you, he is intelligent enough to know his UNPROVEN WORK is wrong. He is continuing to work on it and believe in it because THAT IS HOW SCIENCE ADVANCES. You work on a new theory until work cannot prove it correct. Not when its proven wrong because its wrong from the start.
@@thomasjones4570 as far as I have seen Dawkin's only argument during the debate was: but, in the long run! He seems to want to ignore the last two decades of research findings so he can stay true to his position. Maybe he is not ignoring but due to him being a true pop-scientist needing to "debate" intelligent design and islam he found no time to do or at least read some new research.
@@peter4526 I suggest you watch again only without bias as even Noble laughed often about how what he was saying was true.
SImpletons have no idea that science allows for two opposing theories to exist at the same time and nothing Noble has worked on has shown Dawkins work to be WRONG and vice versa. Thus both theories will continue to be worked on and advanced until one of them are.
@@thomasjones4570 always lovely to get an ad hominem! but see as I am a simpleton I should have not seen that one coming... you might want to check the interview with noble - he is pretty clear about where he sees dawkins. he is just a very nice person.
Now growing obsolete (but at least started the ball rolling).
The debate could have also happened without the host 😅
And ?
😂😂😂😂😂
Genes vs organisms, who employs the other? Is evolution driven by genes or organisms and how?
How about if evolution is driven by the intricate interaction between genes and environment, Evolution depends on neither but on how the genes and environment talk to each other and deliver a respense that affect the outcomes for living organisms!
As I wrote long ago : "About gene and evolution(as defined by small changes(due to natural selection propagated via a mechanism of hereditary transfer (which is genes as we understands it in biology today)) ultimately leading to a new offspring that is different from the original parent); here is my question. As I understand it, genes are on the chromosomes as base pairs (some may be determined by complex relation between base pairs on many chromosomes but there are there on the chromosomes). This means that there are only a finite number of individuals possible. Then now suppose in a thought experiment (Gedanken), we produced all the individuals that a given totality of gene of a given species allows, then now if any two among that sample is combined to produce an offspring (allowed by the rules of the mechanism of hereditary transfer(DNA replication )), but that offspring should be already there in the old sample; so where is evolution? To me it seems that this genetic mechanism forfeits a global evolution; that is to say, this genetic algorithm (mechanism of DNA replication) does not allows a global evolution in a sense that if that mechanism is carried out in perfect precision THEN A GIVEN SPECIES IS A CLOSED SYSTEM, so it can not give rise to a new species as above Gedanken experiment shows. In a perfectly DNA replicating system, evolution can be looked as a local apparent change due to our not seeing the whole assemble of all possible allowed individuals by the whole gene of the species simultaneously."So the only way a new species can arise from an old one is via the inperfections in the hereditary transfer mechanism which is in line with Lamark's idea as pointed out in this discussion.. see link below for my original facebook post facebook.com/dhargyal007/posts/pfbid02v3LM6kHN9auGZJTSrfZM5EC7RxduBe5TYKhUsxV2rEUBL6xEr138Up4XRf82b5mfl
Especially in complex organisms, new species arise due to accumulating differences in gene alleles and the expression of the proteins. This eventually happens when two populations are split. When the maternal and paternal proteins are incompatible this can result in sterility as the fertilised egg is unable to produce a viable embryo. Of course it is not always that simple depending on how many generations pass. Some populations can re-unite as with ourselves and 3 'archaic' humans possibly involving partial sterility and the deletion of one sex (Haldanes Law.)
I’ve said this many times
This sounded like the Chicken and egg conundrum. Which is using the other as a tool or vehicle? Gen or the organism? Fascinating debate.
Chicken and egg is sorted...
Obviously backed by science the egg.
@@jameswright... In that case and with the same logic it must be the Gen controls the course of a cells characteristics and attributes. Must say I find the organism argument also intriguing but must say it might be not one or other but a combination though its the Gen, determines it control in an evolutionary sense.
@@carduchi5881
No!
I can't even see how you come to that non point???
The genetics for the animal laying the egg is different to the animal in the egg.
@@jameswright... Really! How so? :)
@@carduchi5881
Do you know anything about evolution?
Dawkins was too busy debating creationists to be well versed with the current biochemistry advances in order to have a meaningful discussion with Denis.
Wut? You have clearly been too busy listening to creationists and not actually paying attention to any of the actual advances made in genetics the last 5 decades. Denis is speaking about things not being propped up by ANY actual scientific studies and have produced a grand total of not one single advancement.
Dawkins is not a scientist. He's a delusional moron.
Are tubulines connected with luekemia because calcium is inactivated because of a lack of them proteins? and how can a non living organism like a plant be a function without genes acting. A cabbage can't make a decision other than where to put its roots and the roots can't decide where the need for a gene is required without a memory. Unless it all happens in an instant through tubules and calcium.
Interesting and makes me question what life actually is.