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.
@@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.
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.
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!!"
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.
@@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 .
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.
Denis noble explains his argument rationally based on last experiments results. Dawkins explains based on a blind faith on evolution as true, but the big question is why what he is saying should true just because he believes
I think Richard Dawkins talked himself out of his own argument. And Dennis gave a much more convincing argument which made sense to me, even with my very basic understanding of biology. Brilliant discussion. Thanks to both parties.
Who's Dennis? Or do you mean Denis? A brilliant discussion, it was. My takeaway is that semantics got in the way too much. They both agreed with each other more in the end than they cared to admit. Must be the renowned alpha-male pride gene, huh? Overall, though, I would have to agree more with Richard until or unless further experiments and testing, which Denis mentioned, prove him wrong. I'm biased because I've read all that Richard wrote until a few years ago. The evidence, math, stats, and logic he used all seemed vastly sound.
@@abeautifuldayful Yes -typo - Denis. And the agreeing that the books that each wrote was (to me) a way of not getting the other person offside which could have made for a nasty bebate. They were both magnamous enough to compliment each others work. My feeling that because you have only read all Richards work you would have a one sided view. I have read neither but listening to Richard I did not hear him mention any tests that prove he is right. Whereas Denis mentioned several people who did similar tests to arrive at the same conclusion. But I could be wrong. I'm not a biologist or geneticist, so my opionion is only based on my limitted knowledge of basic biology. But Denis's reasoning seemed logical to me. I did not get a similar understanding from anything Richard said.
This is not a debate, it is a discussion. And i admire it very much. I think discussions are way more superior/usefull than debates, and they are also excellent in manner❤.
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.
You have two scientists, one quoting actual studies and literature with amazing specificity, discussing not only the results but the context and the other responding with opinions and conjecture . Truly, people who are famous in certain fields aren’t necessarily the best, or even a representation of the best available knowledge on such field.
The sense I got from the debate is that the most of the Dawkin's arguments are based on his lack of knowledge of more recent publications and developments.
Denis noble explains his argument rationally based on last experiments results. Dawkins explains based on a blind faith on evolution as true, but the big question is why what he is saying should true just because he believes
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.
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.
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!!
@@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.
Woww. Dr. Denis Noble was amazing. It was patently obvious that Dawkings was feeling the heat under the collar of having finally found his match and resound refutation. Dr. Noble is right. "Neo-Darwinism is dead".
Mr. Noble is updated with science, whereas dawkins is stuck in 1970s. I feel Dawkins is stuck because of the legacy he has. He can't know more, otherwise all of his life's work that involves science,antitheism etc, will be null and void. So he basically sucks his life and relevance from ignorance of his followers .
much left to be said. such a deep subject should be given like at least 2 to 3 hours so each can at least finish their points. neither could express exactly their opinions
Noble: let’s be open minded and re-examine old theories. That is science. Dawkins: but evolution… Notice how Noble cites papers and actual experimental evidence, while Dawkins merely speculates.
His speculation has made him rich. Problem is this is mostly what science is about in this modern world. Evidence is almost never asked for and has nothing to do with what people will believe.
@@georgelinker2408 and when the scientific process finds evidence... the community hawks those scientists and attempts to destroy them... its a nasty cycle
@@theghoulshow They are all in it together in a neat little club. Like paranha they feed on the who look to them for guidance. They work together as a group of elites they think they are, getting rich off the taxpayer.
dawkins is not the authority in science neither is Noble, The authority in science is the evidence and there is none against evolution or not sufficient enough overturn it, when it comes to re-examining theories, scientist do it all the time and that's how they win prizes of all sorts. people can be bias but mountains of evidence has no biases.
Finishing remarks from Noble : " we need to be open " so right , otherwise we will miss new evidence as we hold tight to dogma..which felt like Dawkins disposition. It must be hard to give a theory up, even for revision, when you are so tied to it emotionally for so long and to so much acclaim.
I died when Mr.Noble explained the self replication problem within dawkins argument. And then dawkins said, well proof reading is important obviously, but lets talk about natural selection hhahahahahahhahah. It like someone explaining that we can't build a house on water, and the other person saying because lets talk about the second floor of the house and how beautiful the balcony look will be. Dawkins has no idea what he is talking about.
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.
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.
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
At a meta level this conversation is funny. Because when humans use genetic editing tools to adjust or alter the genome of an organism, is the human doing the altering, or are the human's genes doing the altering? Seems like a philosophical question.
The human. Giving agency to genes as Dawkins only works at the evolutionary level, not for the decisions of individual organisms. At the level of the individual, stochasticity is too large of a variable.
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!
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
German physicist Max Planck somewhat cynically declared, science advances one funeral at a time. Planck noted “a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
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
I was a fan of the Selfish Gene and its author the excellent Richard Dawkins but lately Denis Noble convinced me and changed my mind. Denis Noble I think is right.
I was inclined to go with Noble first, but changed my mind back in favour of Dawkins. Of course, you need more than just the DNA-code to recreate a viable (clone) of an organism. You also need the egg cel to grow it The environment needs be right. Given that though it is clear to me that the organism and all its functions are captured fully by the DNA and the principles laid out in The Selfish Gene are valid.
Dawkins conveniently ignore the concept of "Emergent Properties", which refers to the fact that operations and interactions within the system not only produce elements that belong to the same category but also give rise to Emergent Properties that define the system's higher-level behaviours and characteristics. So, these Emergent Properties are characteristics of a system that are not present in its individual components but arise when the components interact and form a complex structure. These properties exhibit new behaviours or attributes that are not predictable from the properties of the individual parts. This is enough to debunk his thesis on The Selfish Gene.
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?
Every time I listen to Dawkins he confirms to me that he's closed and dogmatic about his science, even in the face of compelling evidence that might contradict his beliefs. He is not a true scientist. He can never admit to the possibility that he might be wrong and that science has moved on. Science always moves on.
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".
the absolute shock in dwakins face in explaining his position one of the greatest things i've ever seen that i'm alive to see this. . Fantastic. .who o ..
@@carlloeber What is clear is the incoherence and ineptitude of Denis Noble-he is an embarrassment. Of the few plausible arguments he eventually stumbles through, they are clarified, qualified, and explained by Dawkins. Science can do without Noble‘s mental infirmity.
@frogmorely Ah ha! The ad hominem approach. Your abusive attitude is rarely employed by the side which is correct. There are many things unexplained and unexplainable by neo Darwinianism, such as the Cambrian explosion. Dna and raw natural selection work great for the pre Cambrian. Noble's argument would have no problem explaining how the systems evolve as per Dawkins, but once evolved, the system manipulates the genome to shortcut the evolutionary process. No one disputes the good ideas that Dawkins expounds, but a better idea could exist.
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...
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.
Lets face the fact here people. Denis doesn’t win this debate and he explained more darwinian arguments and some misconceptions. Dawkin made one single mistake that he let the other sign his book which is seen as a form of defeat or the other is intellectually superior by the audience . But why dawkin does that is out of respect for denis. Lamarkism is disproved many times over and over and that’s y richard is baffled by the claim of denis that how come a renowned biologist making such a claim. epigenetic changes can affect an organism’s traits and occasionally be inherited, they do not support the Lamarckian idea of direct inheritance of acquired characteristics. Instead, they add a layer of complexity to our understanding of gene regulation and inheritance within the framework of Darwinian evolution.
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.
@@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.
If I understand correctly: Either you start with genes, and the genes inform the cells, and you have an organism; Or, you start with an organism and over time you have complexity which the organism manages with genes. It will be interesting to see which route produces the better results. No shortcuts to rigorous science and empirical testing.
What they are both describing, which you summarised adequately, is just a matter of perspective. Both options are technically right given the available evidence. Noble's hypothesis, although not new at all, is more in agreement with the modern scientific field, which has seen a prominent shift from genetics to multiomics. In practice, I don't think there is that much of a difference in terms of the application of either hypothesis for something like biomedical research. No matter what perspective you adopt as a scientist, you're going to immediately crash onto the unsurmountable wall that is complexity, and that's what you'll have to carefully try to contend with to produce meaningful results. Knowing whether the chicken or the egg come first doesn't really matter when what you need to know is why the chicken's brain deteriorates at old age due to dementia. Genetic and physiological experimental techniques are just complementary approaches that are almost always used together. Just don't spend millions on underpowered GWAS studies and it should be fine, even if you are a die-hard Dawkins fan.
@@FirstSynapse In neuro side what you describe here is often referred to as "the physics-physiology barrier", for instance a BCI/BMI (a physics-based apparatus) has never directly interfaced with a neuron (a physiological thing) Even Neuralinkk is "just" antennas detecting ambient activity in the brain - zero progress from the 1970's in terms of the science even if engineering is more advanced
I see it as a discussion of the blueprint vs the contractor. Dawkin's argument is that the blueprint is totalitarian, and all instructions flow from it. There's no higher set of instructions. The workers themselves are created from those same set of instructions, so all that is necessary is to understand the blueprints. Noble's argument is that the workers themselves exercise a level of decision-making on how to use the blueprints selectively in order to achieve a higher set of goals dictated by an additional network of encoding. I tend to agree with Noble. He presents plenty of evidence for it, as well as pointing out that this over-reduction of causality attributed purely to genetics has only yielded meager results in medical solutions for disease. Similarly, Michael Levin's work shows strong evidence of a bioelectrical network that displays levels of decision-making on how genes are expressed that can not be explained by genes themselves. The way Levin puts it, it's like we're trying to program a computer by messing with the hardware, when in fact, there's a software level that's much more efficient and that we've been ignoring. Unfortunately, I think Dawkin's over-reductive view of evolutionary biology blinds much of science to this more systematic understanding of biology.
the opening intro didnt highlights the actual contention but merely frame the difference in perspectives. one is saying it is the engine that determines the output of the car and the other stating it is the entire car itself that do so. Noble has claimed that 20th Century neodarwinism i.e. Dawkins notion of evolution was reductionist n driven by blind watchmaker while his 21st century notion of evolution is integrative and driven by one eye watchmaker. i had posited that Evolutionary Development dynamic is both Path and Context Dependent with increasing complexity as successful outcome to achieve higher equilibrium. from primordial random i.e. blind watchmaker (with intelligence) to one eye watchmaker ( low wisdom) to two eyes watchmaker (higher wisdom) and so on etc. this infers it is driven purposefully in tandem with intellectual development. This is clearly observed in the complexity of evolution of human civilisation where we focus on the object e.g. human component but failing to see it in relation to the entire system that is also evolving in tandem as part of wider cosmic evolution to account for its variants as well as extinctions. what we account for evolution is actually episodic struggle to ensure survival of the fittest where natural selection is only part of the equation. evolution dynamics has been an ongoing system dynamics that makes it irreversible due to inter related and nested cause, condition and effect continuum in seeking higher equilibrium. where the genome tells part of the actual evolutionary development. in my thesis, 10 years ago i have posited that evolutionary development of human civilisation is governed by Path and Context dependency in general but driven purposefully by wisdom which infers perhaps intelligence is fundamental attribute of matter that gave rise to wisdom as well as stochastic expression. yet the notion of Path and Context dependency articulates the contextual or environmental factor in equilibrium with the potential form of being at a cosmic level which shaped the stochastic path expression while epigenesis dynamics of natural selection and its stochastic expression is that within an ecological context that is also evolving resulting in stochastic expression of cultures, ethnicities and epigenetic attributes. clearly they are bi-directional influences.
I think in the end it will be something in the middle... yes, genes on a great scale are selfish, but in another way, the fact that small changes such as only 15 generations does change the egg and sperm cells ( the 2018 experiment) gives a hint that in a sense Richard is wrong. It is colaboration, either the organism or either the genes effect each other and can " lead" the other. A colaboration such as a what we see in our own cell with mytocondria.
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?
Dawkins has rested on his laurels after making an extremely important contribution to evolutionary biology. He has spent the bulk of his time popularising his own ideas and apparently ignoring how far biology itself has evolved.
What a nonsensical and disrespectful comment... Dawkins has certainly not ignored how far biology itself has evolved. He has acknowledged and discussed the new discoveries and developments in the field of biology, such as epigenetics, genomics, symbiosis, and microbiomes. However, he has also debated and challenged the claims and implications of some alternative frameworks for evolutionary biology, such as the Integrative Synthesis (Noble) and the hologenome concept. He has maintained his position as a defender and supporter of the Modern Synthesis, the STILL dominant theory of evolution. So, yeah, Dawkins' stance on Lamarckian inheritance is widely backed by most biologists. In fact, you are the one who seems to be ignorant in regards to the current state of evolutionary biology.
@@martam4142 bro he's a wanna be religion thumper destroyer and he thinks he knows stuff but he doesn't, but he is very much a scientist lol a highly respected one at that
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 😊
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.
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
@@A87-h7x 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.
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.
Noble's pseudo-Lamarckism has not "re-ignited debate" over anything among people who actually understanding genetics and selection. The gene-centric view doesn't even come close to ignoring epigenetics or leaving it unacounted, in fact every single piece of contemporary epigenetic theory comes from the paradign of the gene-centric view. That's why we went looking for acquired changes in expression in the first place! In the fetal environment because of anthropological data like the acquired risk of metabolic disease in the children of Dutch Hunger Winter survivors, etc. Noble has spent so long outside active research and updating his understanding that's he basically arguing with gene-centered view as it existed in the 1970's. Also important to keep in mind that Dawkin's doesn't at all disagree with multi-level selection, he just thinks (again along with virtually everyone who actually has to put these models and theoretical frameworks into practice in real life experimental environments) that it eventually has to resolve at the level of the heritable units, which are genes, so that's the locus from which selection should ultimately be analyzed. Inclusive fitness is synonymous with multi-level selection, and Dawkins has written extensively on that topic and clearly has no issue with it. But again, the heritable elements ultimately subjected to selection pressure in an instance of inclusive fitness are STILL GENES. Like Noble, his "The Third Way of Evolution" partner James Shapiro has been largely absent from active participation in investigative biology for many years.
German physicist Max Planck somewhat cynically declared, science advances one funeral at a time. Planck noted “a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
What about the work of Michael Levin that shows evidence of living organisms' ability to correct for morphological disturbances that can not be accounted for with basic genetics?
@@AB-wf8ek When you say "the work of Michael Levin", are you talking about the two slides he showed with a scrambled tadpole rearranging it's eye and arm? Or have you actually read his labs publications? Because you should read the actual papers instead of relying on a few minutes of a UA-cam video to frame something as a gap in the central dogma of biology. The study in question didn't do anything to even suggest a ruling out of genetic regulation of this process. The African clawed frogs that the Levin lab uses have massive paleotetraploid genomes of comparable size to humans and a hundred times less studied. And even if this wasn't the case, I'm going to again ask what else gets inherited by the tadpole other than its genome? Transient electrochemical states do not get inherited. The arrangement of morphology in three-dimensional space at a given moment is not inherited. The genetic model forms the function and almost perfectly predictive basis for virtually all of biology, so if you want to say it's kaput, you need something better in its place. You can't just say "hey here's a speculaton that isn't tested but if it's true might conflict with the central dogma of biology" and think that accounts for an empirical stance. Levin has had over a decade and $20 million dollars from the Allen Institute on the bioelectricity idea and has produced a lot of intersting reserach with basically zero progress on his crusade of deposing the genome as the mechanism of inheritance and the source of the environmentally-refined phenotype.
@lyle1157 It was just a question, no need to attack me. All you had to say was that you don't think his work has any validity in this discussion. I've watched more than a few minutes of his presentations, but I admit I'm neither a scientist, or a biologist, I'm just curious. There was one study he mentioned with planarians in which they were able to generate 2 heads through bioelectrical signals, and that the following clones retained the double-headed configuration. I understand the discussion of evolutionary biology is more about genetic changes over generations, but it seems like there are some interesting examples that hint at a two-way pathway for evolutionary effects.
@@AB-wf8ek Wasn't meaning to attack, I just get basically this same question more times than I can count and it seems almost everyone asking it doesn't really have the working knowledge of biochemistry that is required to understand it before entering respectful debate. It is really a false debate, because nobody I've ever seen in mainstream biology denies that bioelectrical signalling exists or is fundamental to anatomical development. Levin's work is very good for proving that bioelectrical signals (and the landscape of electrical potential from the perspective of the developing anatomy) is either the or at least the major mechanism by which three-dimensional design space is encoded into the genome, which is obviously a string of characters which does not directly translate to anatomical space like it does for proteins and ribozymes, where the symbols themselves (amino acids after translation) and their ordering form the mechanism for the three-dimensional structure of the protein. But this means that the bioelectrics are just another thing which arises from the genome, and thus are still relying on it as the vehicle of inheritance. The same way that protein dimers arise by the steric interactions between two proteins and are not per se "encoded" into the genome, but all the things which lead to their emergence are.
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.
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.
Am I seeing Richard holding onto an idea instead of following the science? Noble seems to be talking about latest scientific discovery yet Dawkins seems to be defending an idea he thinks is settled. Interesting discussion. What I love about science l, when it’s done properly, is the ability for the scientist to be a vehicle for discovery so when Noble says “you are right but for the wrong reason” or something like that, it opens up the prospect of new discoveries but I think Dawkins has checked out which is a shame. I hope he can begin to enjoy seeing the next generation challenge his ideas in the same way Noble does. Bible seems to have a genuine excitement about the topic and encourages and gives credit when it is due
The comments here of people thinking that anything that Dennis Noble says speaks against (Dawkin's) atheism, crack me up greatly. Those people have no understanding of biology or discourses between scientists. Scientists disagree on the details all the time, that is the point of science. Noble's Neo-Lamarkism, true or not, does not have anything to do with your god. Your god stays unproven and factually non-existent. One doesn't even have to be a scientist to understand that.
While it's true that this discussion between Noble and Dawkins doesn't have any baring on whether God exists or not, it definitely undermines Dawkins rhetoric that seems to suggest that Darwinan evolution has made the existence of God unnecessary or less valid.
@@nellwhiteside3042 All this focus on God is irrelevant. You need to stick to the main points of the debate. To say Dawkins or right because there is no evidenve for God is ludicrous. Many athiests don't buy his argument either.
Keep speading that nonsense. A person could have a vision of a god that could make such god very real. Thinking you could proof such god scientifically shows you have no clue about what it is you talk about.
Three cheers for Denis Noble! Noble was insightful. as opposed to Dawkins defensive and selectivity. 13:30 ish, If Dawkins is speaking as an evolutionist, why hasn't he acknowledged the roll changing environmental and conditions transform creatures (& genetics) inhabiting their respective niche. The constant feedback loops between creatures and environments. etc. 31:35 Again Dawkins ignores environment as a key player in determining which genetic expressions survive into the next generations. 33:55 Noble does discuss importance of environment.
Good answer for, Who are you?: "I am, in some respects, the leading edge of a stream of mutating genes..." I have a more old-man version of that: "I am the sum total of all the days that came before, a self-aware filament in Earth's pageant of evolution." And I'm looking forward to your next video. Thanks
It is jarring to hear a “scientist” say “Darwin flirted with Lamarckism that is a historical fact.. you are right but it is not biologically important.” Why Dawkins would value the writings of a less experienced Darwin compared to a more experienced Darwin is befuddling. What is more and more clear to me is that Dawkins sees himself as superseding Darwin and his followers feed that false belief.
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 got SCHOOLED
A dignified debate about the relationship between the gene and the organism. No shouting just mutual respect.
This is how intelligent, knowledgeable and men of integrity debate.
Don't assume their gender.
@@martam4142 😅😅😅
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!!"
it's really impressive how well-spoken and sharp-minded they are at their ages.
Yes. Good genes! (or cells) (or both)
People like them have a lot of mental exercises
@@notanemoprog Keeping their brains active learning new things keeps then going longer.
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 .
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 can't believe a man in his mid 90s is still that sharp !
He is amazing
He is 87 yrs old.
UA-cam at its best. So educational, so inspirational, so exemplary. A beautiful discussion between two beautiful minds.
Dawkins is a mediocre.
Denis noble explains his argument rationally based on last experiments results.
Dawkins explains based on a blind faith on evolution as true, but the big question is why what he is saying should true just because he believes
You didn't watch the video did you. Both accept the fact that evolution is true, no serious intelligent person would ever deny this basic fact.
@ do you mean “Evolution is a basic fact” hhhhhhh, that’s really a good joke!
@@Peacefully-77 Inbred creatard spotted
@@Peacefully-77 inbr3d creatard spotted
I think Richard Dawkins talked himself out of his own argument. And Dennis gave a much more convincing argument which made sense to me, even with my very basic understanding of biology. Brilliant discussion. Thanks to both parties.
Who's Dennis? Or do you mean Denis? A brilliant discussion, it was. My takeaway is that semantics got in the way too much. They both agreed with each other more in the end than they cared to admit. Must be the renowned alpha-male pride gene, huh? Overall, though, I would have to agree more with Richard until or unless further experiments and testing, which Denis mentioned, prove him wrong. I'm biased because I've read all that Richard wrote until a few years ago. The evidence, math, stats, and logic he used all seemed vastly sound.
@@abeautifuldayful Yes -typo - Denis. And the agreeing that the books that each wrote was (to me) a way of not getting the other person offside which could have made for a nasty bebate. They were both magnamous enough to compliment each others work. My feeling that because you have only read all Richards work you would have a one sided view. I have read neither but listening to Richard I did not hear him mention any tests that prove he is right. Whereas Denis mentioned several people who did similar tests to arrive at the same conclusion. But I could be wrong. I'm not a biologist or geneticist, so my opionion is only based on my limitted knowledge of basic biology. But Denis's reasoning seemed logical to me. I did not get a similar understanding from anything Richard said.
This is not a debate, it is a discussion. And i admire it very much.
I think discussions are way more superior/usefull than debates, and they are also excellent in manner❤.
Though "debate" was used plenty of times.
I love the fact that these two esteemed gentlemen know how to disagree - in a beautiful way. Would others learn from this.
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.
That's the way I saw it too. Dawkins is a hero of mine but Noble seems to be his hero!
Seems you need to go see a somatist to try is read and understand emotions correctly.
@motina10 OK thanks.
@@karlbarlow8040 My comment was not direct towards you.
@@motina10 Ah! I'm indoctrinated with manners. It's an illness.
You have two scientists, one quoting actual studies and literature with amazing specificity, discussing not only the results but the context and the other responding with opinions and conjecture . Truly, people who are famous in certain fields aren’t necessarily the best, or even a representation of the best available knowledge on such field.
Brilliant conversation. Thank you.
The sense I got from the debate is that the most of the Dawkin's arguments are based on his lack of knowledge of more recent publications and developments.
Dawkins took a victory lap around 2004 and forgot science is a ever evolving process.
Denis noble explains his argument rationally based on last experiments results.
Dawkins explains based on a blind faith on evolution as true, but the big question is why what he is saying should true just because he believes
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.
Wonderful and thought-provoking conversation! I'm just glad they're still around to have these amazing debates 😁
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.
Not sure what video you watched.
People seem to have their favorite and aren't fully listening. Too bad.
Respect to Dawkins for doing this… Dawkins has long been passed by in this field and it showed.
thanks you for uploading the whole thing, this definitly needs to be out there without a paywall
Denis's energy is admirable. To be this knowledgeable and this humble is impressive.
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.
So refreshing to see an actual friendly debate for once. Very very fascinating great input from both parties.
Sounds more like one sided. The other guy was an active spectator
Discussion not a debate.
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 😅
Woww. Dr. Denis Noble was amazing.
It was patently obvious that Dawkings was feeling the heat under the collar of having finally found his match and resound refutation.
Dr. Noble is right. "Neo-Darwinism is dead".
Mr. Noble is updated with science, whereas dawkins is stuck in 1970s. I feel Dawkins is stuck because of the legacy he has. He can't know more, otherwise all of his life's work that involves science,antitheism etc, will be null and void. So he basically sucks his life and relevance from ignorance of his followers .
Don’t insult noble by raising Dawkins near him please please
@@bilsid You're right. What I meant to say was that Dawkings was really at a loss and out of his depth.
@CommonManMTahoorH that's basically it.
The civility and nobless of great minds interacting... How I wish they were humanity's role-models!
much left to be said. such a deep subject should be given like at least 2 to 3 hours so each can at least finish their points. neither could express exactly their opinions
Thank you man. I was looking for the entire discussion.
Noble: let’s be open minded and re-examine old theories. That is science.
Dawkins: but evolution…
Notice how Noble cites papers and actual experimental evidence, while Dawkins merely speculates.
yes, thank you
His speculation has made him rich. Problem is this is mostly what science is about in this modern world. Evidence is almost never asked for and has nothing to do with what people will believe.
@@georgelinker2408 and when the scientific process finds evidence... the community hawks those scientists and attempts to destroy them... its a nasty cycle
@@theghoulshow They are all in it together in a neat little club. Like paranha they feed on the who look to them for guidance. They work together as a group of elites they think they are, getting rich off the taxpayer.
dawkins is not the authority in science neither is Noble, The authority in science is the evidence and there is none against evolution or not sufficient enough overturn it, when it comes to re-examining theories, scientist do it all the time and that's how they win prizes of all sorts. people can be bias but mountains of evidence has no biases.
Totally wonderful exchange of ideas and wisdom! ❤
Although I really think that the remarks “Lamarck is back” is radical and outrageous.
Finishing remarks from Noble : " we need to be open " so right , otherwise we will miss new evidence as we hold tight to dogma..which felt like Dawkins disposition. It must be hard to give a theory up, even for revision, when you are so tied to it emotionally for so long and to so much acclaim.
I died when Mr.Noble explained the self replication problem within dawkins argument. And then dawkins said, well proof reading is important obviously, but lets talk about natural selection hhahahahahahhahah. It like someone explaining that we can't build a house on water, and the other person saying because lets talk about the second floor of the house and how beautiful the balcony look will be. Dawkins has no idea what he is talking about.
you have no idea what Dawkins are talking about.
@@matswessling6600 I would love to understand why you say that because perhaps I am wrong and actually have no idea what I am talking about.
@@Lamophiles natural selection is easy to test and prove that it generates complexity.
@@matswessling6600 Isn't natural selection based on inference and not actual proof?
@ the process of natural selection is a provable process.
Oh, thanks for uploading this!
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.
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.
Scroll down for people not discussing the issue.
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
I’d never seen RD so locked in and hanging onto each word someone else is saying.
Prof. Noble was his thesis examiner.
At a meta level this conversation is funny. Because when humans use genetic editing tools to adjust or alter the genome of an organism, is the human doing the altering, or are the human's genes doing the altering? Seems like a philosophical question.
The human. Giving agency to genes as Dawkins only works at the evolutionary level, not for the decisions of individual organisms. At the level of the individual, stochasticity is too large of a variable.
Haha, good one
I just discovered Noble and I love him
Thx for uploading this 👍🏾
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?
"...and that is how it's done. Fabulous!" Exactly. Thank you!
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
"It's getting hot in here", says one fruit fly to the other... 😁👍
The most passive aggressive argument in history
German physicist Max Planck somewhat cynically declared, science advances one funeral at a time. Planck noted “a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
Evolution :D
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
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.
I was a fan of the Selfish Gene and its author the excellent Richard Dawkins but lately Denis Noble convinced me and changed my mind. Denis Noble I think is right.
Me too. Creation is not evolution.
I was inclined to go with Noble first, but changed my mind back in favour of Dawkins. Of course, you need more than just the DNA-code to recreate a viable (clone) of an organism. You also need the egg cel to grow it The environment needs be right. Given that though it is clear to me that the organism and all its functions are captured fully by the DNA and the principles laid out in The Selfish Gene are valid.
Till we discover more. We still don't have the final picture.
Dawkins conveniently ignore the concept of "Emergent Properties", which refers to the fact that operations and interactions within the system not only produce elements that belong to the same category but also give rise to Emergent Properties that define the system's higher-level behaviours and characteristics. So, these Emergent Properties are characteristics of a system that are not present in its individual components but arise when the components interact and form a complex structure. These properties exhibit new behaviours or attributes that are not predictable from the properties of the individual parts. This is enough to debunk his thesis on The Selfish Gene.
yes, and BINGO is your name-O
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?
Every time I listen to Dawkins he confirms to me that he's closed and dogmatic about his science, even in the face of compelling evidence that might contradict his beliefs. He is not a true scientist. He can never admit to the possibility that he might be wrong and that science has moved on. Science always moves on.
isnt it funny that darwin also studied under lamarck
it is a good sign when the person A summarizes the position of the person B and the person B is nodding enthusiastically.
Massively fascinating!
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
the absolute shock in dwakins face in explaining his position one of the greatest things i've ever seen that i'm alive to see this. . Fantastic. .who o ..
I wish I was a British gentleman and I could have robust and friendly debates with my friends and fellows in a constructive atmosphere.
It's pretty clear that they both are correct..
@@carlloeber What is clear is the incoherence and ineptitude of Denis Noble-he is an embarrassment. Of the few plausible arguments he eventually stumbles through, they are clarified, qualified, and explained by Dawkins. Science can do without Noble‘s mental infirmity.
@@frogmorely Respectfully I'd like to see your credentials. Let's see some real technical criticisms.
@frogmorely Ah ha! The ad hominem approach. Your abusive attitude is rarely employed by the side which is correct. There are many things unexplained and unexplainable by neo Darwinianism, such as the Cambrian explosion. Dna and raw natural selection work great for the pre Cambrian. Noble's argument would have no problem explaining how the systems evolve as per Dawkins, but once evolved, the system manipulates the genome to shortcut the evolutionary process. No one disputes the good ideas that Dawkins expounds, but a better idea could exist.
@@karlbarlow8040 Kudosing your worthwhile post here. Cheers.
Wish our politicians and world leaders could debate like these two great gentlemen. Wishful thinking 😢
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.
The debate ended when it really started to get interesting.
The Host is nice. she didn't do much but her reacts to discussion fabulas
Brilliant discussion…
Lovely debate…..
Lets face the fact here people. Denis doesn’t win this debate and he explained more darwinian arguments and some misconceptions. Dawkin made one single mistake that he let the other sign his book which is seen as a form of defeat or the other is intellectually superior by the audience . But why dawkin does that is out of respect for denis. Lamarkism is disproved many times over and over and that’s y richard is baffled by the claim of denis that how come a renowned biologist making such a claim. epigenetic changes can affect an organism’s traits and occasionally be inherited, they do not support the Lamarckian idea of direct inheritance of acquired characteristics. Instead, they add a layer of complexity to our understanding of gene regulation and inheritance within the framework of Darwinian evolution.
Google "dias and ressler 2014" and you will soon find that Lamarck is back
@@alexnewton7484 This effects is only for 2 generations, its epigenetics.
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.
If I understand correctly:
Either you start with genes, and the genes inform the cells, and you have an organism;
Or, you start with an organism and over time you have complexity which the organism manages with genes.
It will be interesting to see which route produces the better results. No shortcuts to rigorous science and empirical testing.
What they are both describing, which you summarised adequately, is just a matter of perspective. Both options are technically right given the available evidence. Noble's hypothesis, although not new at all, is more in agreement with the modern scientific field, which has seen a prominent shift from genetics to multiomics. In practice, I don't think there is that much of a difference in terms of the application of either hypothesis for something like biomedical research. No matter what perspective you adopt as a scientist, you're going to immediately crash onto the unsurmountable wall that is complexity, and that's what you'll have to carefully try to contend with to produce meaningful results. Knowing whether the chicken or the egg come first doesn't really matter when what you need to know is why the chicken's brain deteriorates at old age due to dementia. Genetic and physiological experimental techniques are just complementary approaches that are almost always used together. Just don't spend millions on underpowered GWAS studies and it should be fine, even if you are a die-hard Dawkins fan.
@@FirstSynapse In neuro side what you describe here is often referred to as "the physics-physiology barrier", for instance a BCI/BMI (a physics-based apparatus) has never directly interfaced with a neuron (a physiological thing)
Even Neuralinkk is "just" antennas detecting ambient activity in the brain - zero progress from the 1970's in terms of the science even if engineering is more advanced
I see it as a discussion of the blueprint vs the contractor.
Dawkin's argument is that the blueprint is totalitarian, and all instructions flow from it. There's no higher set of instructions. The workers themselves are created from those same set of instructions, so all that is necessary is to understand the blueprints.
Noble's argument is that the workers themselves exercise a level of decision-making on how to use the blueprints selectively in order to achieve a higher set of goals dictated by an additional network of encoding.
I tend to agree with Noble. He presents plenty of evidence for it, as well as pointing out that this over-reduction of causality attributed purely to genetics has only yielded meager results in medical solutions for disease.
Similarly, Michael Levin's work shows strong evidence of a bioelectrical network that displays levels of decision-making on how genes are expressed that can not be explained by genes themselves.
The way Levin puts it, it's like we're trying to program a computer by messing with the hardware, when in fact, there's a software level that's much more efficient and that we've been ignoring.
Unfortunately, I think Dawkin's over-reductive view of evolutionary biology blinds much of science to this more systematic understanding of biology.
Well said. This summation helped me understand the debate much better, thank you. (Not a biologist, obviously)
the opening intro didnt highlights the actual contention but merely frame the difference in perspectives. one is saying it is the engine that determines the output of the car and the other stating it is the entire car itself that do so.
Noble has claimed that 20th Century neodarwinism i.e. Dawkins notion of evolution was reductionist n driven by blind watchmaker while his 21st century notion of evolution is integrative and driven by one eye watchmaker. i had posited that Evolutionary Development dynamic is both Path and Context Dependent with increasing complexity as successful outcome to achieve higher equilibrium. from primordial random i.e. blind watchmaker (with intelligence) to one eye watchmaker ( low wisdom) to two eyes watchmaker (higher wisdom) and so on etc. this infers it is driven purposefully in tandem with intellectual development. This is clearly observed in the complexity of evolution of human civilisation where we focus on the object e.g. human component but failing to see it in relation to the entire system that is also evolving in tandem as part of wider cosmic evolution to account for its variants as well as extinctions. what we account for evolution is actually episodic struggle to ensure survival of the fittest where natural selection is only part of the equation. evolution dynamics has been an ongoing system dynamics that makes it irreversible due to inter related and nested cause, condition and effect continuum in seeking higher equilibrium. where the genome tells part of the actual evolutionary development.
in my thesis, 10 years ago i have posited that evolutionary development of human civilisation is governed by Path and Context dependency in general but driven purposefully by wisdom which infers perhaps intelligence is fundamental attribute of matter that gave rise to wisdom as well as stochastic expression. yet the notion of Path and Context dependency articulates the contextual or environmental factor in equilibrium with the potential form of being at a cosmic level which shaped the stochastic path expression while epigenesis dynamics of natural selection and its stochastic expression is that within an ecological context that is also evolving resulting in stochastic expression of cultures, ethnicities and epigenetic attributes. clearly they are bi-directional influences.
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.
I believe Dawkins wasn't being glib, he seemed actually nervous. Glimmers of a much younger Dawkins under the stress of presenting in front of Noble.
I think in the end it will be something in the middle... yes, genes on a great scale are selfish, but in another way, the fact that small changes such as only 15 generations does change the egg and sperm cells ( the 2018 experiment) gives a hint that in a sense Richard is wrong. It is colaboration, either the organism or either the genes effect each other and can " lead" the other. A colaboration such as a what we see in our own cell with mytocondria.
ciało to pan a geny to sługa który wykonuje polecenia pana nie może być inaczej
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?
Dawkins has rested on his laurels after making an extremely important contribution to evolutionary biology. He has spent the bulk of his time popularising his own ideas and apparently ignoring how far biology itself has evolved.
What a nonsensical and disrespectful comment...
Dawkins has certainly not ignored how far biology itself has evolved. He has acknowledged and discussed the new discoveries and developments in the field of biology, such as epigenetics, genomics, symbiosis, and microbiomes. However, he has also debated and challenged the claims and implications of some alternative frameworks for evolutionary biology, such as the Integrative Synthesis (Noble) and the hologenome concept. He has maintained his position as a defender and supporter of the Modern Synthesis, the STILL dominant theory of evolution. So, yeah, Dawkins' stance on Lamarckian inheritance is widely backed by most biologists. In fact, you are the one who seems to be ignorant in regards to the current state of evolutionary biology.
@@RevanXDawkins is NOT a scientist. Nor a philosopher. Just a wanna-be.
@@martam4142 bro he's a wanna be religion thumper destroyer and he thinks he knows stuff but he doesn't, but he is very much a scientist lol a highly respected one at that
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 😊
Dawkins may worry that he has a lot to loose. But his contribution is recognised despite biology inevitably moving on.
As usual, Dawkins is just great at calling someone wrong. But doesn't have any strong argument to back it up.
As usual, creatard is still seething about dawkins mopping the floor with his fantasy
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?
@@READERSENPAII for what?
The Taylors Son, Oxford Professor, Dr Denis Noble, did well! 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
Systems biology is the future
Noble is learned. Well-versed in experiments
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.
@@Rishanthreddy12Pop-science writer. NOT an scientist.
@@martam4142 He did do some scientific work though , not that I think it's important but it can be classifies as science
In interviews, Dennis Noble insists that he convincingly refuted Dawkins' position in this debate, as in others, and to which he had no reply
I’m not sure this went anywhere. But it’s more likely that I wasn’t able to keep up
Is there any gene process that is not specifically for producing and folding proteins?
yes, there are some specific for producing and folding RNA molecules which end up becoming enzymes in some cases
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
@@A87-h7x 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.
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.
Noble's pseudo-Lamarckism has not "re-ignited debate" over anything among people who actually understanding genetics and selection. The gene-centric view doesn't even come close to ignoring epigenetics or leaving it unacounted, in fact every single piece of contemporary epigenetic theory comes from the paradign of the gene-centric view. That's why we went looking for acquired changes in expression in the first place! In the fetal environment because of anthropological data like the acquired risk of metabolic disease in the children of Dutch Hunger Winter survivors, etc. Noble has spent so long outside active research and updating his understanding that's he basically arguing with gene-centered view as it existed in the 1970's. Also important to keep in mind that Dawkin's doesn't at all disagree with multi-level selection, he just thinks (again along with virtually everyone who actually has to put these models and theoretical frameworks into practice in real life experimental environments) that it eventually has to resolve at the level of the heritable units, which are genes, so that's the locus from which selection should ultimately be analyzed. Inclusive fitness is synonymous with multi-level selection, and Dawkins has written extensively on that topic and clearly has no issue with it. But again, the heritable elements ultimately subjected to selection pressure in an instance of inclusive fitness are STILL GENES. Like Noble, his "The Third Way of Evolution" partner James Shapiro has been largely absent from active participation in investigative biology for many years.
German physicist Max Planck somewhat cynically declared, science advances one funeral at a time. Planck noted “a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
What about the work of Michael Levin that shows evidence of living organisms' ability to correct for morphological disturbances that can not be accounted for with basic genetics?
@@AB-wf8ek When you say "the work of Michael Levin", are you talking about the two slides he showed with a scrambled tadpole rearranging it's eye and arm? Or have you actually read his labs publications? Because you should read the actual papers instead of relying on a few minutes of a UA-cam video to frame something as a gap in the central dogma of biology. The study in question didn't do anything to even suggest a ruling out of genetic regulation of this process. The African clawed frogs that the Levin lab uses have massive paleotetraploid genomes of comparable size to humans and a hundred times less studied. And even if this wasn't the case, I'm going to again ask what else gets inherited by the tadpole other than its genome? Transient electrochemical states do not get inherited. The arrangement of morphology in three-dimensional space at a given moment is not inherited. The genetic model forms the function and almost perfectly predictive basis for virtually all of biology, so if you want to say it's kaput, you need something better in its place. You can't just say "hey here's a speculaton that isn't tested but if it's true might conflict with the central dogma of biology" and think that accounts for an empirical stance. Levin has had over a decade and $20 million dollars from the Allen Institute on the bioelectricity idea and has produced a lot of intersting reserach with basically zero progress on his crusade of deposing the genome as the mechanism of inheritance and the source of the environmentally-refined phenotype.
@lyle1157 It was just a question, no need to attack me. All you had to say was that you don't think his work has any validity in this discussion.
I've watched more than a few minutes of his presentations, but I admit I'm neither a scientist, or a biologist, I'm just curious.
There was one study he mentioned with planarians in which they were able to generate 2 heads through bioelectrical signals, and that the following clones retained the double-headed configuration.
I understand the discussion of evolutionary biology is more about genetic changes over generations, but it seems like there are some interesting examples that hint at a two-way pathway for evolutionary effects.
@@AB-wf8ek Wasn't meaning to attack, I just get basically this same question more times than I can count and it seems almost everyone asking it doesn't really have the working knowledge of biochemistry that is required to understand it before entering respectful debate. It is really a false debate, because nobody I've ever seen in mainstream biology denies that bioelectrical signalling exists or is fundamental to anatomical development. Levin's work is very good for proving that bioelectrical signals (and the landscape of electrical potential from the perspective of the developing anatomy) is either the or at least the major mechanism by which three-dimensional design space is encoded into the genome, which is obviously a string of characters which does not directly translate to anatomical space like it does for proteins and ribozymes, where the symbols themselves (amino acids after translation) and their ordering form the mechanism for the three-dimensional structure of the protein. But this means that the bioelectrics are just another thing which arises from the genome, and thus are still relying on it as the vehicle of inheritance. The same way that protein dimers arise by the steric interactions between two proteins and are not per se "encoded" into the genome, but all the things which lead to their emergence are.
Wow, such an amazing exchange. This is the British way.
Colonialism is the British way 😂
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.
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.
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.
Am I seeing Richard holding onto an idea instead of following the science?
Noble seems to be talking about latest scientific discovery yet Dawkins seems to be defending an idea he thinks is settled.
Interesting discussion.
What I love about science l, when it’s done properly, is the ability for the scientist to be a vehicle for discovery so when Noble says “you are right but for the wrong reason” or something like that, it opens up the prospect of new discoveries but I think Dawkins has checked out which is a shame. I hope he can begin to enjoy seeing the next generation challenge his ideas in the same way Noble does. Bible seems to have a genuine excitement about the topic and encourages and gives credit when it is due
Science is about debate, not just blindly accepting "the newest thing". This newest idea is just that, a baseless idea
The comments here of people thinking that anything that Dennis Noble says speaks against (Dawkin's) atheism, crack me up greatly. Those people have no understanding of biology or discourses between scientists. Scientists disagree on the details all the time, that is the point of science. Noble's Neo-Lamarkism, true or not, does not have anything to do with your god. Your god stays unproven and factually non-existent. One doesn't even have to be a scientist to understand that.
While it's true that this discussion between Noble and Dawkins doesn't have any baring on whether God exists or not, it definitely undermines Dawkins rhetoric that seems to suggest that Darwinan evolution has made the existence of God unnecessary or less valid.
There is absolutely NO evidence for any god(s). Therefore, there is nothing that makes gods' existence unnecessary - not even Darwinian evolution.
Why are you bringing God into this debate? Leave that out and focus on the main points.
@@nellwhiteside3042 All this focus on God is irrelevant. You need to stick to the main points of the debate. To say Dawkins or right because there is no evidenve for God is ludicrous. Many athiests don't buy his argument either.
Keep speading that nonsense. A person could have a vision of a god that could make such god very real. Thinking you could proof such god scientifically shows you have no clue about what it is you talk about.
The idea has entered my head and now it won't leave. Denis Noble is Dawkins' real-life Ogden Wernstrom. 😂
Three cheers for Denis Noble! Noble was insightful. as opposed to Dawkins defensive and selectivity. 13:30 ish, If Dawkins is speaking as an evolutionist, why hasn't he acknowledged the roll changing environmental and conditions transform creatures (& genetics) inhabiting their respective niche. The constant feedback loops between creatures and environments. etc.
31:35 Again Dawkins ignores environment as a key player in determining which genetic expressions survive into the next generations. 33:55 Noble does discuss importance of environment.
Good answer for, Who are you?: "I am, in some respects, the leading edge of a stream of mutating genes..."
I have a more old-man version of that: "I am the sum total of all the days that came before, a self-aware filament in Earth's pageant of evolution." And I'm looking forward to your next video. Thanks
It is jarring to hear a “scientist” say “Darwin flirted with Lamarckism that is a historical fact.. you are right but it is not biologically important.” Why Dawkins would value the writings of a less experienced Darwin compared to a more experienced Darwin is befuddling.
What is more and more clear to me is that Dawkins sees himself as superseding Darwin and his followers feed that false belief.
Michael Levine's experiments on planarias second Noble's view.
I was waiting for bioelectricity and two headed planarias to come up yes yes
Richard Dawkins is a hero. Thank you, Professor Dawkins.
He got his ass handed over here , did you watch the full video?
Denis was agreeing most of the time.@@Rishanthreddy12
If you are a fool, yes. A fitting hero.