Denis Noble explains his revolutionary theory of genetics | Genes are not the blueprint for life 

You should mention this video is incomplete and paywalled in the title :(

Did not expect click baitnes for you guys.. rest is behing a paywall

Douglas Adams' biological trilogy: 'Where Dawkins Went Wrong' 'Some More of Dawkins' Mistakes' 'Who is this Dawkins Person Anyway?'

@@TheInstituteOfArtAndIdeas Genes aren't selfish, but the gene centric view of life has been incredibly, incredibly useful.

@@TheInstituteOfArtAndIdeas sad that you don't let people see the full video. You claim "The charity funds the provision of live and online cultural events that seek to further the education, understanding and engagement of the public" but basically decided to use RU-vid as your advertising platform.

@@pan_cimrman What payment? I went to the site and watched a couple of the videos quite freely

​@The144Kth Yes there's a pay-wall I can't watch beyond the 5th minute.

You shouldn't do that to cut in two such an interesting information

The website they sent us to doesn't even play the video, its super laggy and takes forever to load. great way to annoy people.

Look at his pinned comment dummy.

@@conceptinterface Dr. Bruce Lipton, "Epigenetics"

He already GAVE u the main concept of the peer reviewed study in journal nature. The simplest way to say it is that they have PROOF now that EPIGENETICS is real and has a biological process, so logical conclusion is: heal yourself spiritually, mentally and physically BEFORE procreating. And then don’t damage the offspring once they’re born or the results will be in all the generations to come! You’re welcome.

Completely agree! Even though I would LOVE to enjoy some of the content they have, I refuse to support their tactics. It's really too bad.

me too, very dishonest. i'm out.

Well, they are not genes, so they can be selfish.😂😂😂

@@JackT13 For a bit of balance, you should check out Stephen Meyer’s “The return of the God Delusion”.

What is Noble's definition of purpose? I've heard a full hour talk with him on a podcast: but these more casual talks lack the clarity needed to connect the most important bits

Furthermore he's not revered because revered would imply that he is more than 50% popular in the general public opinion polls. Secondly pull your head out of his ask for a second and actually learn what the words you're trying to use mean.

The whole speech is based on a misunderstanding (seemingly wilfully) of Dawkins’ notion of the gene as selfish, which is an argument he makes from the perspective of natural selection. It seems obvious that Noble is desperate to be seen as important and the best way he could imagine to do that is to oppose Dawkins’ ideas, given the mass popularity of “The Selfish Gene”.

I can’t interpret his speech as genuine given nobody sincerely denies that epigenetic processes affect germline development. That understanding runs parallel to the notion of the selfish gene quite comfortably. Noble is just muddying the waters by contending with Dawkins’ point on the selfish gene in the context of natural selection. It’s disingenuous and wilful misunderstanding which is poor form in the field of science.

Yes, and Nick Lane. If you don't know his work, look it up. I've been posting proof of concept for a gene drive in the comments. The key is the relationship, in the "machine code" of water, between genetic information and bioelectricity. It's based on a structured water device. And genetics needs a 3D math paradigm that makes protein coding deterministic. It's all a lot simpler than most people would ever allow, or so it seems to me.

@@dsm5d723 Just watched a Nick Lane video. Very impressive. I hadn't heard of him so thanks for the heads up. For years I felt the scientific community had become "dogmatic" in regards to evolution, as if it were an open and closed case, which is just silly when you consider just how much we still don't understand about the process of life from a scientific standpoint.

this would be amazing if setup.

Cells are the true architects of life ✊

this is youtube...what else do you expect..really? any article will have a ton of dumb comments and a rare few smart ones.

And you , a salty commentator, what are your credentials?

Pascal, Edison, Galileo, Faraday, Ampere, and Einstein may think it is a mistake to assume only those with PhDs have value add contributions. Scientific elitism perpetuates bad ideas by creating an in group that pressures conformance to legacy theories. Autodidacts are the only innovative engine left in science.

Go give Ya head a wobble, wer you think you are Uni

Why is it that 'experts' in a field believe that they are so much better than everyone else? It is quite possible for an 'amateur' to come up with ideas which outclass those of the 'professionals'. BTW The fact that you put Dr in your YT name does NOT confer you any sort of privilege or respect.

it's like saying the XOR operator is selfish, or a WHILE loop is selfish, loops are endlessly selfish in C++ but barely selfish at all in JavaScript...

I'm doing my best to try and fix that. 3D computation is what we don't do with computers. We've taken Knuth's complexity theory as permission to stack binary to a functional limit. Making protein coding deterministic in 2 dimensions is not possible. Water is the computational substrate of biology.

@@dsm5d723 Water is the computational substrate of biology. - What a sentence!

@@dsm5d723 kudos and godspeed, i know im not deep enough in to really be able to express this idea and am SUPER happy to come back here and see at least one professional benefitted from this synthesis!

I have to chime in on this... I don't think his assertion of no conditionals existing between nucleic pairs is correct. And he left out uracil if that matters. The purine adenine (A) always pairs with the pyrimidine thymine (T), and the pyrimidine cytosine (C) always pairs with the purine guanine (G). The conditional (if then) exists in their persistence of chemical behavior. If A encounters !T (c code) then don't pair. It is an intrinsic state machine... and all state machines are conditionals even if in a switched aspect (case). Thoughts welcome.

I agree. Just look at identical twins or even clones of other animals or selective breeding of given animals and how they match each other so closely: If anything the potency of genes/genetics will only become more vivid with greater understanding atst as the complexity of feedback-systems knowledge with genes grows also.

@@commentarytalk1446 the point is that they don't match each other that closely, especially in the case of clones. Dolly looked very different from her source, which emphasizes the importance of the environment. Even twins don't share finger prints because those develop in the womb and are likely a result of self-organization a la Alan Turing.

Noble's main point of contention is that the weismann barrier is nonsense.

@@snowballeffect7812 I met Dolly The Sheep as part of a study trip along with the scientist that led the work on her. The major difference was the artificial environment at the time which contributed to poorer health in her later years. I think you're being very imprecise and vague to the degree of saying nothing of substance, when you state: >"the point is that they don't match each other that closely, especially in the case of clones." Goes against all the evidence, development will proceed via different variables but the same genetics is striking how well it matches across so many parameters.

@@commentarytalk1446 dolly was literally a different size and her bone structure was quite different. she also was found to have shorter telomeres and developed a progressive lung disease and arthritis, though it's uncertain if these diseases were a consequence of her being a clone or not. other clones also did not live as long, either since the technology is actually quite finicky and error-prone. It's simply a matter of fact which anyone with even a cursory experience in genetics would know. Why anyone who allegedly met Dolly (on a study trip, no less) would not know this is baffling. cloned cats, for example, don't even have the same fur patterns, let alone personalities. Many traits, like fingerprints in human twins as stated before and fur patterns as stated here, are a result of self-organizing chaotic feedback systems/fractals. What is the point of being so incredibly defensive while being absolutely incorrect?

@ValQuinn youre wrong though, Dawkins is one of the pioneers of the gene centered view of evolution.

@@jjaa5879 He is. And he's wrong.

@@jjaa5879 Dawkins has become inflexible, and that is not good science

@@mikoajnalewaj1321 except a zillion viruses. They mutate dna and rna cause cancer

That phrase stuck out like a sore thumb.

Anayın A.M. MI

Brilliant!

The "instructions change, but the instructions for each are also different to begin with. Perhaps also some instructions are designed to be easily altered where as some instructions are "hard wired"?

we often called it 'tune in' or 'adaptation'... or 'error occur'

A lot of bs, does he need the money that badly to mislead people this way?

you missed his point. It is of course through genes many biological functions occur. He is just removing the genes from their perceived role of having primary causation to everything that happens in the cell. Genes are not drivers, they are passengers along with the organism through the life cycle of an organism.

@@Elmirgtr let’s try another way. Two different organisms with different genes and same environment will have different outcomes. Genes are not mere passengers. It’s a combination of genes and environment that’s driving behavior.

Yes, but does that happen because by brute force the heat destroys a part of the genetic info, or because information is transmitted through the membrane via proteins channels? Your understanding lacks the scientific specify that his talk is attempting to convey. While even a farmer can observe what you described, it takes a scientist to explain why it occurs at a biomolecular level.

​@@stevedoetsch Maybe even a farmer could type that better than you did? Scientific specify? You mean specificity? There is no need to belittle other people when you are tiny yourself.

Yes, and even eye color is a not fully determined by genes. There are blue eyes parents with brown eyes offsprings. Genes are just the start of a long pathway to get a particular trait.

You get it. Now what controls the Epigenetic changes? Our minds are one option, as are deeper networks of biology.

@@annunacky4463 it's almost certainly not our minds, at least not at any conscious level. the body has much more effect over our mind than the other way around, like how you can barely think straight if you have to go to the bathroom, are freezing, are in immense pain or under chronic stress. Both intrinsic, internal and external factors over short and long periods of time affect our bodies, which in term affects our mind and most of these process are not through the nervous system, but through hormones (endocrine system). These chemical signal pathways are what really control our biological systems from embryo to reproduction, taking care of our young and others and beyond.

​@@saltynutzz You obviously know virtually nothing about molecular genetics. Genes necessarily encode for proteins via the processes of transcription and translation. Genes merely produce the polypeptide chains that fold into the native structures of respective proteins. The genetic code was produced through a co-evolutionary mechanism, where specific codons became associated with certain amino acids to produce an adaptive value. Epigenetics is not an outdated term; it actually refers to the addition of chemical tags that control the transcription rate of certain genes, and these mechanisms are highly variable based on various regulation pathways. We also have alternative splicing as a mechanism, where certain introns are removed in order to produce unique mRNA messages that encode for a greater variety of proteins. Thanks for demonstrating your ignorance of the subject. I hope that you study Biology and familiarise yourself with scientific concepts before spreading misinformation on the Internet.

​@@annunacky4463 No, our minds do not control epigenetic changes. Learn Biology, for goodness' sake.

Put his name in YT search bar you will find other videos.

How?

@@KOKOPIKOSS While McClintock's findings emphasize genomic complexity and regulation, and Dawkins focuses on the replicative success of genes, these views can complement each other by showing that some genes (like transposons) can be both dynamic and "selfish" in their behavior

@@Ganeshsharma1978 That doesnt make Dawkins ideas obsolete though...

This guy totally wacked.

@@Zonydeep which guy?

it is not so much a challenge of natural selection as the need to recognize it is only half the equation- imagine an organism that evolved to alter its offspring, like a queen ant, the idea that evolution is limited to natural selection is such a dogma that Dr Noble drawing a simple line from epigenetics to a recognition that genes are no more a complete program than a text file that might happen to be C++ or could just as easily be HTML or JavaScript- acting like we understand genetics while dogmatically adhering to natural selection as the sole means of evolution is like expecting a webpage you made in 2005 to work just fine on a modern browser and refusing to acknowledge that defining the browser will make it easier to read/write web pages.

Hence, it's not just the 'system' that's critical, but intelligence as well. Nagel, was right: the reductive naturalist dogma is wrong in its outright dismissal of teleology and intelligence in nature.

Oh you definitively got the spelling wrong 😅

What is intelligence in Nagel's view?

Non yo seeemn to haven got it’d most lye rights

How did you write six words and managed to have three grammatical mistakes. Did you go to school.

@@saltynutzz there's not one mistake, grammatical or otherwise. You must not know how to read.

​​​@@saltynutzz 7 words. No grammatical errors. Proper punctuation. You cannot count apparently and certainly don't know grammar. In fact you made two grammatical errors and left out two questions marks. D- for you, grammar n*zi.

​@@ferrantepallas It is not that it has grammatical mistakes, rather, the style is both too simple and ever-striving for a more complex one. I will not rephrase, that's not my job. My duty is simply to point out that, by your comma placement, the sentence could've achieved more meaning and substance. Why is this important? Because even the most mundane writing is writing, and, your writing *IS* *your writing*. The totality of your perception and inquiry, internal and external, can be modeled like clay by the way you *think*.And by writing you declutter and arrange the fruits of your reason. I dearly hope this will help clear any misconception or ambiguousness of your comment or any further reply. Bless.

Not really; which point does he make here to lead one to conclude that?

Might you elaborate?

What ?

@@colingibson7324 its either true or false , its just the point of refference that matters , you prolly saw that post on quora

@@geog26 the FRAME OF REFERENCE matters. Whatever quora is, some thinking happens independently of it. If we take the galaxy as our frame of reference, then the Sun and the Earth orbit their mutual centre of gravity.

"Selfish" is a misleading metaphor, even Dawkins admitted it. At best, it is a redundant metaphor. It just succeeded because it reads like a catchy "meme".

@@y37chung absolutely right

Of course it's old news, Denis Noble is old, he's been saying this for decades. Science happens extremely slowly and personally it feels like it's getting slower.

It is old news for scientist, but in public image : genes=everything. Which has a lot implications in medicine, society and politics

@@MrSpown1989 no reply, i wonder why?

@@gregsutter1805 Probably because the answer would be "what about it?" Neither gene therapy nor mRNA vaccines necessary fundamentally change an organism into a new species or anything. Gene drive could be used to devastating effect, but the scope of RNA vaccines and Gene therapy are both extremely narrow as put into practice and very different from each other. Also, there's no such thing as "gene therapy vaccine". This is like saying "hamburger farm". They are totally different things. RNA vaccines work by specifically exposing living cells to mRNA that codes for a potential antigen of the target virus. The mRNA is simply translated by ribosomes into a peptide chains which, hopefully, fold correctly and into the shape of the antigen, like a part of a virus spike protein. This antigen is eventually detected by the immune system, but since there's no actual virus, the exposure is short in duration and nothing pathogenic/harmful to the cell is ever really present. Gene therapy works by targeting the genome of the host directly, similar to how a retrovirus works. As a matter of fact, modified retroviruses have been typically how gene therapy is conducted. this is obviously much more dangerous in its potential and there have been cases where oncogenes have been activated. Typically, gene therapy is used for very narrow genetic modifications, sometimes to targeted parts of the body. Tests are conducted ex vivo first and usually this means germ line cells are not targeted as viruses can target non-germ line receptors. Of course, germ line therapy is possible. combined with gene drive, this can lead to wide-spread effects on a population, such as forcible sterility in later generations, as an example. There is basically no possibility for the mRNA to have any effect on germ line cells from an mRNA vaccine. The mechanism of effect simply does not allow for it as the mRNA and the product of the mRNA are simply recycled or disposed of by the cells and body and the central dogma means nothing can go backwards into the genome since there's no extra enzymes or proteins in the vaccine. Gene drive, with the advent of CRISPR, is a whole 'nother story and has terrifying potential. If such technology is being weaponized, we likely would only find out only after it was already too late. Even then, the worst we could do perform "knock-out" gene or prion attacks, which is pretty horrifying to think about, but would not lead to accelerated evolution or super powers or anything like that.

Gene teraphy and vaccine are tow separate things

Dawkins argues from a reductive view point genes are the basis of an organism and drives its characteristics Noble is arguing from a system approach that genes are in fact just switches and protein builders that it's the Whole organism and primarily the cell and it's interaction with its environment that actually influences the genes so one can't make a prediction from the gene sequence alone about health etc at least that's my understanding although I am not in anyway a biologist and I've simplified what is undoubtedly a very complex argument

I think you mean obtuse and not oblique but interesting take.

@@Paulcolt13 youre using an open mind to hear what Dr Noble is saying yes, this alters the paradigm in biology but it is in a subtle way, you could argue he effectively predicted epigenetics but epigenetics only had to be rediscovered bc (and that is the wiesmann barrier part) the field as a whole took darwinism down a sort of pigeon hole and precluded the possibility that an organisms heritable genes could be altered outside the mutations that occur during reproduction. fundamentally this forces us to conceive of a more subtle evolution that can be altered by environment without population based selection. this SHOULDNT be so controversial considering we have many birth defects demonstrated to us by DuPont however the natural process is apparently far more subtle. To make a more empirical argument i will direct you to evidence of heritable drought tolerance in arabidopsis but, AGAIN, i shouldnt have to defend epigenetics if the field were not already detrimentally wed to the idea of rigid blueprints that can only be altered by the casino of survival.

@@ValidatingUsername both

@@Paulcolt13 You are correct but dawkins does not deny environmental input nor the idea of epigenetic occurrences,

@@meadish Noble's argument seems to be that the lipids that make up membranes aren't generated by DNA, therefore the egg is essential for "enabling" DNA to even exist to do its job of creating proteins...which are then incorporated into the membranes to regulate chemical processes.

Since the phospholipid bilayers form automatically, this in itself doesn't have to be encoded... However the metabolism of membranes is regulated genetically. The argument may have been: is the genetic material sufficient to build a whole living cell?

@@meadish the egg (secondary oocytes) cell contains most if not all of the mitochondria the fertilized egg will ever have. These mitochondria contain their own DNA. The egg also has a set of cytoplasmic proteins and RNAs that will become part of the fertilized egg.

Whichever authority you choose, just acknowledge that your "science" is nothing more than choosing between authorities, aka, a faith. Until you are able to reason through what you have been taught you remain in the cult of scientism choosing your favorite leader, rather than using your own brain to distinguish observable phenomena from the claims of your cult leader.

@@stevedoetsch I’ve already reasoned through the evidence, Steve. And so has Dawkins. Your ad-hominem insults add nothing to the discussion.

@@reason2463 Reasoning through the evidence does not mean the conclusion you have reached is your own or is based upon reality. Your world view will initially sift the evidence into two bins. The evidence you accept and the evidence you do not accept. In the end your conclusion is already pre-programmed to agree with your world view that existed at the very beginning of the exercise. An open mind is the only mind capable of changing their mind as new factual evidence arrives while the closed mind is locked into believing the same lies through perpetuity. I know Richard Dawkins operates through the closed mind mentality as his most recent conclusions illustrate and thus you are following in his footsteps. Not so amazing as the vast majority of humanity does the same, never questioning their own motives to either believe or not to believe. The unexamined life is not worth living just as is the unexamined mind.

​@@reason2463These are the ppl who would never read a line in a book that crtiticize their ideas, then going around say that its an insult to Christ. But when someone else read the B then show the inconsistencies, contradiction and problematic parts, they'll say "you're taking it too literally", and start making excuses for their non-existent imaginary friend. Never let this kind have any authority over science. Ever.

"and without that combination, nothing happens at all. " Genius...you mean if two people don't F -- nothing happens, thats a great new perspective.

😢

👍👍👍

Hameroff, not Penrose. But I agree. Microtubules play a huge role in expressing and transferring genetic information. Life in my eyes absolutely interacts with fundamental space/time geometry to create a relativistic system in which our environment affects us and we affect our environment. Not our environment determining us. I think quantum properties of microtubules are the answer as to how nobles biological relativity functions.

@@felicichris1369whatever is Hammeroff without Sir Penrose. Who consulted whom here.

Why not Penrose?

@@markboggs746 I feel that if you have a moire gear involved, twisters and belts and motion then mathematics is where you put your questions. Hammeroff would need a basis of the unequivocal knowledge of Sir Penrose about how to proceed with such a quest

Listen to me I've been reading through the comments for about 10 minutes and you're the first person who literally said what the main argument should have been. I think he's confusing selfishness with consciousness and what consciousness plays in selfish motivations in organism. There are processes that could be construed as selfish from our point of view.

No. The problem is that he is identifying the wrong "extra ingredient". The lipids and membrane proteins are less complex than the genome, they don't work as his "missing processing".

@@mrxatwork is this sarcasm?

@@rosesacks7430 I noticed some green 2 months ago and since i never had any green in my eyes i kept watching and still getting greener. Could be my diet no processed food no seed oils back to my high school weight. The rest of my family has brown or blue eyes.

A dare say he has a better understanding of the topic that you. The title was clickbait that the publisher liked.

@@carlhitchon1009 Learn to write first, son.

I have crohns. Changed to keto

Cool rebuttal, bro; so if I get what you're putting down here, if I want to refute Richard Dawkins, all it takes is for me to get down on a RU-vid comment section and compare him to Trofim Denisovich Lysenko, eh? Gee - thanks for the clarification on how the scientific method is supposed to work...

I don't even understand your argument. You're saying Lysenko was brilliant. So why would Stalin need to ban genetics? And what does Trump---and possible future American president---have to do with genetics in the United Kingdom?

@@zer0h0urs000 He/she is being sardonic: Lysenkoism was a pseudoscientific doctrine with disastrous repercussions to the Soviet economy.

@zer0h0urs000 look up Lysenkoism and you will understand. Genetics describes a means of competition between individuals (or even genes) which is antithetical to communism. Communism believes that there will be one day an End of History when human beings distorted by competition (capitalism) are perfected into Socialist Man (perfectly social and noncompetitive). Thus Lysenko attempted to create a theory of biology that mimics communism. For example: making summer wheat grow in the depths of winter will turn the summer wheat into hardy, winter wheat; Another example: plants grown too close together actually produce more. Both examples are readily disproven. Lysenko's bone head idea contributed to the starvation of 50-100 million people in USSR and China. Ironically there are really some traits passed down in this way, but more subtly than just sticking a plant in a freezer to make it frost proof.

lol what a stupid thing to say