13:43 The practice of eugenics does not seem to me to be unviable under a more modern model of phenotype expression. If anything it stands to gain from a more accurate probabillistic model of how genes influence what offspring might be like, utilizing modern bioinformatics techniques. It surely becomes quite a bit more difficult to define what phenotype to aim for with the needed rigor and respect to the prospected environmental factors, since the desired traits need to be balanced against each other and the cost of providing certain environments beneficial to meeting goals, but pareto problems aren't impossible to find acceptable solutions for.
If anything biology is simplified nanotechnology, simplified to many faults Relatively to complex/advanced nanobots of course Advanced nanobots wouldn't suffer and eventually die even when healthy, nor be evil and create stupid humans Or perhaps chaotic would be a better way to think, cause chaos will always die just to return again
There would still be ridiculous headlines like: 》Scientists find 24 "golden genes" that guiderope you to prosperity《 Which expresses in probabillistic term the same ridiculous statement as expressed with deterministic vocabulary before.
Who would believe the oversimplified unnuanced crap we get taught through school and media? Those mediums are for the uninterested masses that doesn't want to acquire knowledge about a topic to get closer to the truth, but want to *feel* and *look* to others like they are smarter, but they can't wait to get over and done with a topic and throw it on the steaming pile that is thier worldview without further inquiry! That's why thier pile reeks of propaganda. Yes, I'm angry about the system and shake my fist towards the sky in youtube comments.
I think it's all about quantifiability and quality, QUANTIFIABILITY goes into the depths and gives us precision where as QUALITY explores different possibilities gives us accuracy. Now in nature as a whole consist of both but there is a hierarchy of their relative abundance among subjects. Quantifiability being the highest in the lowest level of subject i.e. Mathematics and quality being the highest in the highest level of subject that is social science. NOW BIOLOGY being in the middle its hard to balance both the perspectives. I GUESS..... 🤔
You are tearing down much more than you build. All science is built on incomplete information and the molecular machine metaphor and metabolic and signaling pathway maps are about as good as they get to explain the biology of a cell. No doubt that induced fit and repurposing of structure for different function is a built-in feature of biological systems. In the two videos I watched (the other one is you have been lied to about genetics), you criticize a lot, but do not offer a single alternative view except that it is more complex than we thought.
I really appreciate the clarity and nuance of this video, it really conveys a more accurate understanding of how dynamic and complex cells truly are. That said, I feel like this deeper understanding of the cell’s dynamic components should qualify, rather than negate, the fact that a cell’s protein components have/are parts (1), which are solid (2) and specific (3). Namely, it should qualify them in the following ways: a cell’s protein components are not fixed parts in a single mechanism or process, but are part of many different mechanisms/processes (1*); these proteins are not rigid (whether rigidity equates to solidity is possibly a moot point), but flexible and dynamic, adopting many different (and often useful) conformations (2*); these proteins are often not monofunctional, but polyfunctional, playing a role in a huge variety of processes. My fear is that negating, rather than qualifying that a cell has solid, specific parts (like machines) may cause someone to think that cells are less amazing, intricate, or worthy of wonder than artificial machines, when actually the opposite is true. (I believe the opposite is true because, to me, the co-option of proteins into many processes, their dynamic nature, and polyfunctionality makes them more worthy of wonder than artificial machines with less dynamic and integrated parts). Furthermore, having observed motor proteins (like dynein) in action using fluorescence microscopy, I would also say that, at least for a significant portion of proteins, there would still be relevant and helpful analogies which could be drawn between them and artificial machines. In summary, I would argue that a cell’s components are, in the main, unlike artificial machines, not because they are less amazing, but rather more amazing than such machines. I understand, however, that you probably believe the same thing, and so again I am very grateful for you sharing this information and getting it out there, as it is extremely helpful and interesting.
Awesome job conveying the subtleties involved!. High time this was main stream. And I couldn't agree more with your take on teaching kids the real story from the beginning. Subscribed!
I actually don't see the same thing. I see the DNA as an extremely complex blueprint that creates you. Over and over and over again. And it is very complicated but all of the kinesens go to the DNA and to different spots to pick out a little pieces that need repairing so I'm not sure what you're thinking of or why you made this video. Perhaps you just haven't kept up to date
6 min in. I hope you get to the point where we start talking about what genes actually are, and how we misunderstand the situation if we think complex phenotypes are the result of a single factor (one gene). But you stick with this Waddington model. It's not a math problem. The gene encodes a protein. If that protein is expressed, we see its effect in the cell/tissue where it is expressed. Melanin getting made in the iris will turn that blue eye brown. If you don't have the gene for the protein to trigger this, you get blue eyes. Mendel's model works to explain this. Add in scenarios in which only a small amount of melanin is produced (green eyes), or various other factors come into play (purple, hazel, yellow, even red eyes), then you simply need a model that includes more than one factor working as a network or module. That module isn't random. It's not a probability. It is simply the workings of physiological pathways based on the expression of multiple proteins. We can still understand it. The complex network of factors involved in eye color are mostly known. The network for skin color is more complex. There are two types of melanin. There are variants in their expression. We don't know all of the genes at play in the network yet. Ultimately, DNA is not a "blueprint." It's a tool chest with an instruction manual for how and when to use the tools. Yes, environmental factors affect whether the tools can be made and when. But you can't boil it down to a probability like Waddington's "Plinko" board attempts to do. That's a totally wrong understanding. Like a lot of mathematical models, they're oversimplifications based off of assumptions that ultimately turn out to be wrong. No matter how accurately you do the calculation, if you plug garbage assumptions into a garbage formula, you''ll get a garbage result. GIGO. Let's not throw out a useful learning tool and replace it with GIGO, just so you can skip Intro to Biochemistry.
This video is EXTREMELY misleading for anyone trying to understand evolution or ethics at any level. I urge everyone to unsuscribe, as this channel is promoting a seriously problematic thought framework that is as vulnerable to ideological manipulation as SubAnima says Dawkins work is. So, first off: no, I'm not a Dawkins lover by -any- extent. There are many possible and legit critiques at how he does science, and especially, how he talks about it. But here, SubAnima is directly trying to erase scientific knowledge (as kin-selection has been quite proved so far), just because "it's politically problematic", based on the assumption that "politics and science are inseparable". This last phrase has been debunked literally tons of times, and only a very narrow and specific way of sciencing can apply that view (especially, those scientific methods lying on the upper ontological levels), such as sociology. Yes, SubAnima: it's perfectly possible to separate politics and science, although it'll be easier in some sciences than others. But we should never try to manipulate or literally try to remove scientific facts or data that contradict our ethics. We know (or at least, should know) that our ethics are a construct without any fundamental basis - and there's literally NOTHING wrong with that. The is-ought fallacy is something we could perfectly educate on, and politically operate from that framework, even if "the human mind can't viscerally do that separation". Wait, did you just... justify a morally doubtful prescription (letting science be manipulated by ideology) based on... a biological feature?! You are literally doing *the same* that you're criticising. And in this case, it's funny because you don't even provide any real world data on how much people tend to fall into naturalistic fallacies; just cited a random female philosopher as an argument of authority and provided no data on how common that is, nor provided any argument for why it would be "so difficult to fence off scientific discourse regarding these issues". This video is extremely problematic for those reasons, but many others could be pointed out. I sincerely hope SubAnima does a correction video, not to legitimize Dawkins of anything, but at least to recognize the serious epistemological consequences of this way of thinking, and understand that we indeed can operate in science following an ethical framework that doesn't fall into these problems. edit: by the way, if someone is racist, homophobic, male supremacist, etc... they're literally never made that way because of science, but their family, friends or experiences. If someone already has that belief, they will keep legitimizing it with any data they find, using science when it's at "their side", and ignoring it when it's not. Just the same as many posmoderns instrumentalize the science they want, while ignoring an immense chunk of it.
Awesome video! Although, I don't see how oversimplified models (special cases/purified lineages/idealized scenarios) are synonymous with determinism and therefore the need to discount determinism. Punnett squares are limited to two dimensions, but matrices, more generally (and tensors, etc.), can hold theoretically limitless interacting factors. If only Mendel had the Sacrament of Linear Algebra upon his mantle, lol. I can see _the illusion_ of randomness appearing within that complex math, perhaps as nodes or null zones of sorts. Maybe I don't understand determinism quite the way you mean it.
Interesting scientific perspective. Interesting just how far we have to go to justify and rationalize our positions. Yep, I'll be that conservative A-Hole. This presentation is going as far as to debate the very definition of life and of organisms to justify killing babies in the womb. It's the same mindset and worldview that will go into the weeds about what is biological sex to justify gender transition and the affirmation of the trans community. If anyone ever winners why there's so much anti-intellectualism in the world, look no further than these types of end-products of so many intellectual endeavors. It's why the public has lost so much faith in not just intellectuals, but intellectual institutions.
The one thing that we need to realise is that *All Models Are Wrong* And that's okay, a model doesn't need to be 100% accurate and become overcomplicated to the point that it basically is the same thing as the thing that it's trying to model. But what matters is how USEFUL a model is at explaining and applying a concept. A protein capable of doing multiple separate tasks is an important thing to recognise, but depending on that research you do, it may not be relevant. C0nC0rdance goes more into the shortcomings of models and why they don't need to be perfect.
I certainly agree with much of this video. However I think you have brushed over many areas of actually practiced non-reductionist physics. Condensed matter theory, as a notable example, generally sidesteps the kind of ontological reductionism you've ascribed to physics. It is very important to distinguish between actual study in physics in the modern day on one hand, and popphys entertainment on the other hand.
The failed assumption that mapping the human genome would yield answers to all of our biological successes and failures has been evident for some time = a decade or more. However, most of biological research is wrapped around this failed assumption. Why aren't we researching gene expression (the things that activate and deactivate the genes)? THAT'S what matters and this idea of gene expression (genes turn on and off) was posited (and disparaged of course) long ago. Using the excuse that "it's complicated" is just that: an excuse. Biological scientific research needs to get its head out of its rectum and start focusing on this.
a lot of genetics research is focusing on gene expression and gene interactions. its not the scientists that wont let go of the "blueprint" idea, its major media and "news" organizations that haven't let go of it. Biological scientific research isn't the one with its head up its butt, its major media, scientists embrace complex answers to complex questions, major media avoids anything complex. You are judging scientists by the way media portrays them, but that portrayal is wrong. Your frustration is reasonable, but misdirected.
it is a turn of phrase, he is one of the founders of the study of genetics as we know it today. like how the U.S. refers to its first set of political leaders as founding "fathers."
Yes this is still the ship of Theseus no matter how much of the constituent parts are replaced. This is where we have to give credence to Plato's realm of forms theory. It's the ship because it has always existed as such, either here or eternally as an idea...and no change, other than changing it's form, would change its nature. Even if we remade it identically, the replica would also be the ship of Theseus. Because it "owns" that form.
Well done presentation man. I believe there would be some great intersections to ponder between the ideas expressed here and those of Rupert Sheldrake via his theory of Morphic Resonance. In a nutshell he posits that life is better described by "fields" which work to shape organisms far more so than our molecular machinery. One content creator even did a great presentation on the crossovers between morphic resonance theory and process philosophy (brought up here), focusing on the ideas of Owen Barfield and Alfred North Whitehead and Henri Bergson Not sure this channel allows posting of additional YT links, but I'll give it a go. Recommend watching/listening: Rupert Sheldrake on Morphic Resonance: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-AFKOAH7oUPc.html Formscapes on Morphic Resonance and Process Philosophy: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-AejwVSMJWYw.html
"It doesn't guarantee anything" but it is probabilistically related in such a way that you can be confident of the outcome in most instances. Appealing to genetic relativism because of fringe cases isn't useful.
Myself and other doctors just watched your video in our lunchtime at Royal Prince Alfred and we have renamed your video JAKE BROWN DISCOVERS NON MENDELIAN GENETICS.
I like your videos because they make topics I would otherwise struggle to understand clear and conscise to me. I also like your videos because they make neurons no.1055 and particularly no.999 among others in my brain fire. Both of these statements are equally true. Am I a biological agency or just another robotic mechanism 🤔
Teachers teach the curriculum as interpreted and dictated by the specification of the syllabus board chosen by the school and not so free to teach as they wish. They ultimately need to ensure their students are capable of handling exams based on that particular specification and will use the text books related to the specification. Further, it would involve science teachers to re-educate themselves in current ideas in genetics to become familiar with the curriculum content. Therefore I don’t think this is going to be some overnight change that anyone is going to take, but a major undertaking to revamp the science curriculum itself.
Genes are more complicated than being straight forward blueprints. Most are inactive from our evolution and held onto just in case it maybe needed again.
What's the point of saying proteins jiggle? Is that because you don't think body parts should be viewed as machines and you want to make them look different from machines we know about? When the string folds into a protein aren't there physical bonds that determine its shape and provide rigidity? Cells and even molecules like ribosomes are complex. People understand complex things in various ways. Why should you criticize if I think of the molecules doing DNA replication as a team of [biological] machines? They act like machines; I think they must send signals to each other to complete this complex process! Do you have new images of cell processes to replace the ones like that shown @5:06? I would think this kind of diagram could be simplified perhaps to an interactive app because it's very complex. But apparently it's useful to those who know what's going on.
this video is a waste of time, without mendel there would be no concept of genes and people would still use the "blending" model also the laws of mendel are still true and the cromosomal theory could only be verified because of mendels work so this is just nonsense, every genetics course for children acknowledges in the first class that there is mendelian and non mendelian inheritance
