The unselfish gene | Denis Noble challenges Richard Dawkins 

As Noble says "We don't yet know it's effect", but we'll just go ahead with the CRISPR program anyway without knowing the long term effects.

would like to watch it but unfortunately I have to pay a subscription.

DNA changes through mutations and partial, and sometimes total, crossover.. CRISPR only speeds things up. Long term effects are never predictable either way. Just remember mathematical chaos and how it manifests in nature like the butterfly effect.

Denis Noble speaks beautifully, with care and gentleness for his topic a pleasure to listen to! It has been so long since hearing someone talk about science with such a respect and kindness for what he talks about, thank you for sharing!

​@@BulentBasaran There is something powerful than gene & doing evolution with add mixing genes in nature. Its controlling everything like a simulation.

Yeah but when's K9 going to show up?

If only I could upvote 10 times

😂😂😂

😅😅😅

@mistermuso I feel that your comment doesn't have _nearly enough_ 'likes'....

Gentleman having a civil discussion, any politicians watching how it's done. Don't make me laugh.

It's because Noble a fellow biologist. However religious people and scientists that claim to be religious he shows less respect for, sometimes none.

@@TheGreatPerahia Yes, I think Dawkins should stick to biology. I don't think he has made any contribution at all to the religion/god/atheism debate. He seems incapable of empathy when talking to religious people.

@@jonathancrick1424 nah.. He's done pretty good in that field as well.. Pretty good arguments

@@harsewaksingh3829 Yeah, but how hard is it to construct a logical argument against a belief in God(s)? How many believers has he converted with his unassailable logic? He as condescending jerk and terrible at delivering a persuasive argument. Plus, he's hypocritical. Have you ever heard him wax poetic on the transcendent beauty of the natural world? The natural world is neither beautiful nor transcendant. Not until a human projects that perspective onto it. He's searching for meaning just as much as religious people who see a god or gods behind it all. To be a real atheist, one has to acknowledge that there _is_ no inherent meaning to any of this. Most all of us are religious when the concept is considered broadly. Dawkins seems to have no awareness of the incredible privileges he has as a person with the background and intelligence he inherited, all of which brought him to his perspective. Not everyone is so lucky. Plus, does he ever stop to consider the existence of religious belief across literally all human culture as far back as we can look? Wouldn't that suggest that there may be some evolutionary benefit to whatever it is that makes us this way? He's an intelligent man, Dawkins, but only in a very narrow line of inquiry. And what about the whole selfish gene thing? I agree with his colleague. Dawkins' idea seems to imply some sort of volition that can't be there. And have you ever heard his hypothesis about bats hearing in color? Watch how excited he gets talking about that idea, one that is based on no empirical evidence whatsoever. Sorry for the crazy response. Obviously, I have my issues with Dawkins.

I think the idea that the surface being affected by the nucleus through calcium networks is novel to me

@@Marenqo I'm smiling. I'm nodding! 😂

@@garryharriman7349 😆

@@Marenqo I'm pretty sure that Prof. Noble was talking about it the other way round: the nucleus being affected by what happened at the surface.

I respectfully disagree. All he is saying is that organisms ( ourselves included) are able to exert some control on how we evolve over time by either changing in response to our environment and/or changing our environment directly.

Love The Jam !!!!!!!

Neo-evolutionary theory a la Dawkins is for the Dodos

Lights going out and a kick in the balls, I’ll tel ya, that’s evolution, that’s evolution.

Wait till you see Daniel Dennett and his hair-facial hair grooming fashion: Charles Darwin reincarnate.

like so much else in science they failed to replicate or the results are far worse than the original

And no evidence of that whatsoever but you "strictly evidence-based" people believe anything that conforms to your beliefs.

Denis was referring to the cells ability to replicate, specifically when Dawkins mentioned inserting your genetic code into a futuristic sequencer (hypothetically 10,000 years from now), which then, would be able to generate an exact copy of the (human) life from which the genetic code was taken from (behavior, memes, or anything like that was not necessarily the topic here). The problem is that it can be hard to imagine how you can get past the DNA polymerase ability to proofread the nucleotides during transcription with such pin point accuracy, if this isn't done correctly/perfectly how could you even think to create a 1:1 replica. While, it may be easy to say "Well in the future we will have an answer," but in practice (with todays tech) the likely hood something could replicate that process virtually 1:1 without any errors seems highly unlikely, bordering on imaginative. Worst case scenario, with the amount of potential errors that could result, it does not even seem likely that it would create something can that sustain life properly, let alone thrive (needs a living cell)...but...I am not one to bet against technology though, so 10,000 years from now, there might be a retro amusement park with exact replicas of us roaming around having a good time.

​@@justcrap3703 back that up. Thank you.

@jiimmyyy They do not have to back their claim up as they are saying there is no evidence, it is impossible for him to show that there is no evidence. It is up to you to show that he is wrong by showing him the "evidence".

@@justcrap3703 You’re saying that epigenetics doesn’t exist or that you cannot change the genetics of offspring through epigenetics?

Are you going to attempt replication and has your significant other agreed to this experiment?

Is it just me or is it impossible to read the phrase "facts and logic" in a voice other than Ben Shapiro's

"facts" is a big problem. When is a fact? If it's something coming from an experiment involving statistics, maybe not necessarily a fact. Logic is another problem

@zachkent2575 that's what I was going for.

Thsi kind of debate is not so rare. It's just that most of it isn't political and isn't televised.

@@Drew-de7ey I need to get out more.

And why did you think that "what goes on in the cell could only change gene expression, not the sequence"?

Noble is saying that "being A Good Boy has good effects on your genes". I LIKE him, and always kind of thought that The Selfish Gene was inaccurate and didn't really EXPLAIN that it was a manifesto of rebellion against the scientists. (Obviously, manners are what have been keeping us alive because they are the most basic level of social awareness, through which evolution takes place. Writing books about science is for Dedicated Scientists to do, rather than Any Weirdo who has gained access to a keyboard) I need people like Noble because the others are very dangerous extremists who do not submit to Reason (because they are publicly implying that they specifically don't believe in Reason, as per their choice which they've already made). Never care about whistleblowers. Let's be honest: they simply show up in the news when "we" are being demonstrated why whistleblowing, as a concept, has no place in society (or even reality). "Leaking info" has no meaning because nobody can come up with such an idea without there being something very, very wrong about the way that he was raised. Parenting is, in fact, Specifically NOT A RELIGION. So, if your manager is telling you to keep him up to date, he might be "on a different side than you". This paranoia, along with the adage, "Better to be a nobody in my nation than A King of any other nation", causes the political divisions within every border. The truth is that neither side is pure enough to get the vote of Reason. Reason would be unstoppable. Reason would change the meaning of everyone's citizenships. You Are willing to become a victim in order to expose the truth, but that's a waste of time.

So its not sure how changes in cells actually results in changed genes and dna. Its proven that the surface has impact on cells though. The theory is not complete without proving how this changes DNA.

Yes you are correct that the traditional view is animal cells never (intentionally) change the DNA sequence in their genome. I have a masters degree in cell biology and I've never heard of that happening. Whatever research Noble is describing must be very new. He seems to be suggesting that there is a seen but unknown method by which cells can sense environmental stimuli and use that to alter the DNA sequence in their genome, mediated on some level by calcium signalling and transport along microtubules. I was really quite annoyed that Noble made this huge claim about cells changing their DNA sequence in response to stimuli, researched by two of his students, and then spent 3 minutes describing something completely irrelevant (how transport of messenger proteins occurs). The video ends at the precise moment it was about to get interesting. I might go and watch the full version because I want to know now.

@@TheRABIDdude Yes, this. Nothing can happen inside the cell without the transfer of information through chemicals and their electric potentials. Unless one is selling the spiritual "add-on" side of things. At which point I duck out of the discussion. Firstly, the potential for "intended" change would already need to be part of the DNA strand as well as the structure of the cell and its constituent molecules. As far as I am aware, the cell already has mechanisms for transferring types of information from the surface of the cell to the DNA, in order to manage the expression of sequences and the suppression of others, in order for the cell to produce the proteins, enzymes and other outputs it needs to as part of it's function within its tissue context. For example, it might need to secrete a particular hormone in response to the varying presence of some agent outside the cell. Traditionally we understand that base changes do take place through replication errors that are not picked up by the reparase mechanisms that continuously "proofread" the strands. Similarly with non-fatal errors caused by irradiation or chemical action. Most non-fatal error repairs are possible because of the "mirror image" nature of the strands. But to have base changes that seem to be the result of "intentionality" in response to information coming from outside the cell rather than by "accident" is suggesting that there is a degree of "programming" somewhere within the "code" whereby the "cell brain" can "know" what function the cell needs to be coded to perform that it currently doesn't. It would imply that the cell would even have some sort of "knowledge" that there is something outside the cell that it needs to adapt to. Where such information would be stored and how it might possibly be activated and expressed when needed would have to be identified. Are there structures that might be candidates for such a process? I would like to see what evidence there is for this actually taking place that cannot be explained by the normal trial and error model of cell operation. It starts to sound a little far fetched to me.

Ah yes! Good catch. .... Well actually no, I have no idea what you're referring to, but thought if I agree I might come across as an intellectual. I am shamed...

@@fartpooboxohyeah8611 lol 😆

He does. that was the first one then the pissed guy from the fast show.very very drunk at the time

There's a link in the description that begins "Watch the full debate at..."

@NuisanceMan Thanks, I couldn't see it on my smartphone format.

Neither, God created both, and you'll probably laugh, I can't explain what God is, but science is now looking more to God, than evolution, the wheels have come off evolution...

@@nigellee9824 I agree “God” made it all. But I also think God IS the mind. And science also seems to be moving towards that idea.

@@nigellee9824 This is incorrect.

@@nigellee9824 i disagree that is a very simple and close minded if not prehistoric answer god is your brain telling you shut up and let him live in peace god is the answer to everything when you dont actually have the talent or will to find an answer

Yeah I think this is *several* years old now. Like 2015ish?

@@Airehcaz didnt they mention covid

13:46 ​@@Airehcaz

Not that old. Noble mentions coronavirus about five minutes in.

Wrong of RU-vid not to require date of production stamps... They refuse to do that..

As fascinating as it was to learn about how information is transmitted through a cell, the video seems to be a rather clumsily clipped excerpt that lacks the context required to understand what Prof. Noble's overall point was. I think we need to watch the full debate. It can be watched on the website of the Institute of Art and Ideas. I suppose the purpose of this excerpt was just to get us agitated enough to get off RU-vid and go to their website to watch the whole thing.

Denis doesn't have much of a point. Lots of hand waving and irrelevant details. Dawkins has the logical higher ground.

Denis point is that a cell can not be never exactly replicated due to the fact the irreductibiliy of complexity of the cell and the nucleus. Dawkins doesn't really understand what is he talking about.

@@andyshinskateDenis has no point, just hand waving and irrelevancies. Yet, despite his incoherent ramblings, he's said nothing about "irreducible complexity," another idiotic canard. Dawkins has the higher logical ground in all this.

@@bigbrointhesky It's such an irony that you bring insults as arguments. Are you the one who criticizes Denis set of plausible thoughts?

Genes only code for protein, if that

@@hosoiarchives4858 They do much more... then culture codes, well, a fair amount.

So it's infinite?

Can you support your claim with anything substantial ? Other than some spiritualism word salad

So the lion king was right

​@@nephastgweiz1022 all evidence of phenomena with any form of longevity, e.g. DNA, galaxies, tornadoes or magnetism have spiralled circular recycling and repeating functions.

thank god you dont self replicate, because one pointless punt is already too many

@@11235butself replicate this 🖕

Nobody (intelligent) thinks that people are self replicators. It's the genes that are replicated. I think they got a bit confused with anlogies at one point because Dawkins definitely does NOT believe that you can clonme a person from their DNA. A close physical and psychological match certainly but much less alike than identical twins because the environment of the clone growing up would be radicaly different. Watch The Boys from Brazil - A great movie.

You are right, they discussing metaphorically. I believe Dawkins is philosopher.-scientist I was trying to make a joke. To clone oneself is well past my means. @@N.i.c.k.H

I know. Such a short-sighted missed opportunity!

It would also have avoided Dawkins's thesis being abused by right-wing libertarians for their own cynical ends -- such as William Rees-Mogg (the execrable Jacob's dad) and James Dale Davidson in their book 'The Sovereign Individual'. I suspect, however, that Dawkins chose that title because it sounded it sounded nicely 'hard-headed' and therefore 'scientific' and would, he supposed, be more attractive to the many readers who like big, brutal ideas than, say, 'The Generous Gene'. And, unfortunately, I think his supposition was correct: such ideas and titles do attract readers. I recommend 'Killer Apes, Naked Apes, and Just Plain Nasty People: The Misuse and Abuse of Science in Political Discourse', by Richard J. Perry; John Hopkins University Press

Except selfless and unselfish are not synonyms

@@emilsadykhov123 umm... yes they are.

​@@timothyharris4708those hard headed titles will attract readers in the future when life might get harder, but in 2024, I have no clue where have you heard that. I am sure that nobody in your academic circles. You just presume people would because, you know, people are evil. Well, other people. Is a simple case of Neo Marxism getting to you. It happens often.

perhaps there is a role for viruses to play.

I believe in E.coli, they use the pattern of methylation on CATG (or some sequence anyway). The enzyme removes the bases that are in the unmethylated strand. A methylated strand is typically the original DNA hence the unmethylated strand is the new one.

@Daniel_Hanrahan right , that makes sense so need for comparison with other cells.

Every cell has a nucleic acid copy book.

@@Humanity101-zp4sq except for mature red blood cells and finger nails and such.

Dawkins speaks mostly of darwinistic selection on the scale of populations, and adds time to fill out the gaps to explain 'how it happened". It's the easier topic. What Noble is going on about is molecular biology, and it's seriously the harder topic. What he's asking is how it can happen, like what mechanism is *actually* doing the thing that Dawkins just assumes exists. If you like the harder topic, try looking up Dr. James Tour and his scientific challenges to the origin of life community (like Lee Cronin). At present, in my understanding is that no one have found these mechanisms, but a certain part of the naturalistic people mostly have faith that it exists. Others are less optimistic, and they think the book needs to be opened again so we can look perhaps less biased in other directions than the one Dawkins in on.

use a ad blocker

Use Brave

Or an "autoskipper" like Ad Skipper

I'd say almost more like a cat in a box. (or was it??)

@@rigelb9025 Indeed! Almost Like a Whale is the title of a book by the evolutionary biologist Steve Jones that closely follows the format of Origin of Species but in a modern context. A good read :)

@@ianactually Neat

You are biased. You did not follow the argument at all.

@@kofipapa2886Rather than directing an ad hominem accusation at me personally, why not elaborate on precisely which part of my statement is biased and why, and what leads you to falsely believe that I didn't follow the argument?

Mutations can be induced in reproductive cells, meaning those mutations have a potential to be passed on. Also if epigenetic alterations like methylation, which influences to what degree genes are "activated", happen in reproductive cells they might be passed along too (although there are also cellular mechanisms to undo these alterations)

​@@correlolelo Today habitat is found much static due to resources at hand, we don't we find mutations of all different sought which otherwise could have been eliminated?

Such changes cannot be the selective pressure. Thus they cannot drive evolution in any specific direction. Denis does not understand the algorithm of natural selection.

That's the big question that evolutionary biologists can never ever produce any proof of... They say mutations and natural selection, but no mutation increasing information has ever been observed. And the process supposedly takes millions of years so good luck with getting any further than that.

Epigenetics

Noble is saying that "being A Good Boy has good effects on your genes". I LIKE him, and always kind of thought that The Selfish Gene was inaccurate and didn't really EXPLAIN that it was a manifesto of rebellion against the scientists. (Obviously, manners are what have been keeping us alive because they are the most basic level of social awareness, through which evolution takes place. Writing books about science is for Dedicated Scientists to do, rather than Any Weirdo who has gained access to a keyboard) I need people like Noble because the others are very dangerous extremists who do not submit to Reason (because they are publicly implying that they specifically don't believe in Reason, as per their choice which they've already made). Never care about whistleblowers. Let's be honest: they simply show up in the news when "we" are being demonstrated why whistleblowing, as a concept, has no place in society (or even reality). "Leaking info" has no meaning because nobody can come up with such an idea without there being something very, very wrong about the way that he was raised. Parenting is, in fact, Specifically NOT A RELIGION. So, if your manager is telling you to keep him up to date, he might be "on a different side than you". This paranoia, along with the adage, "Better to be a nobody in my nation than A King of any other nation", causes the political divisions within every border. The truth is that neither side is pure enough to get the vote of Reason. Reason would be unstoppable. Reason would change the meaning of everyone's citizenships. You Are willing to become a victim in order to expose the truth, but that's a waste of time.

Bro

​​@@seanrowshandel1680 the author of the book is meaningless if the book is well written and, of course, true.

I agree that quantum mechanics exists and is influencing the world in various ways. But from what I understand, biological systems are more or less "immune" against it. For example for something to happen in any cell in your body the cell have to get to a minimum threshold value before the cell fires a signal. Quantum mechanics are random and can therefore not get big enough to influence a cell because all the small quantum mecanistic randomness will cancel each other out or be too small to matter. That's the explanasion I have heard for why quantum mechanics doesn't matter in biological systems. But I am not too knowledgable in this field to say for certain if this is the case. I want to hear counter arguments if anyone got something :)

😂

And how few are commenting.

Here are two men??🧐

Yeah, kinda. Good analogy.

Terrible analogy. Especially considering that Dawkins is more like the Minister of Propaganda in a totalitarian dictatorship whose primary directive is to completely eradicate any notion of design in the universe.

@@elgatofelix8917 Any why does that make you mad? I can tell you are religious geez

Yes, the environment plays a role in what genes are turned on and off

Noble is saying that "being A Good Boy has good effects on your genes". I LIKE him, and always kind of thought that The Selfish Gene was inaccurate and didn't really EXPLAIN that it was a manifesto of rebellion against the scientists. (Obviously, manners are what have been keeping us alive because they are the most basic level of social awareness, through which evolution takes place. Writing books about science is for Dedicated Scientists to do, rather than Any Weirdo who has gained access to a keyboard) I need people like Noble because the others are very dangerous extremists who do not submit to Reason (because they are publicly implying that they specifically don't believe in Reason, as per their choice which they've already made). Never care about whistleblowers. Let's be honest: they simply show up in the news when "we" are being demonstrated why whistleblowing, as a concept, has no place in society (or even reality). "Leaking info" has no meaning because nobody can come up with such an idea without there being something very, very wrong about the way that he was raised. Parenting is, in fact, Specifically NOT A RELIGION. So, if your manager is telling you to keep him up to date, he might be "on a different side than you". This paranoia, along with the adage, "Better to be a nobody in my nation than A King of any other nation", causes the political divisions within every border. The truth is that neither side is pure enough to get the vote of Reason. Reason would be unstoppable. Reason would change the meaning of everyone's citizenships. You Are willing to become a victim in order to expose the truth, but that's a waste of time.

Actually Perry Marshall has an interesting paper. “Biology transcends the limits of computation” And he states: “Turing mathematics shows causation in biology is not chemicals - > code - > cognition but cognition - > chemicals - > code.”

@@GodID7 That paper doesn't show a mechanism. What is the system Denis seems to think exists for translating input from the environment into a specific mutation to meet the challenge of that environment. We know natural selection does this through trial and error over multiple generations, but Denis seems to think there's a more direct way.

Bruce Lipton proved experimentally many years ago that the cells react intelligently to the environment and turn the appropriate genes on and off in order to adapt the organism to it. In other words, intelligence controls adaptation rather than random mutations and selection, which makes it much faster. Observations in nature seems to support this idea - google "Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island" for an example.

"Feelings" is not a valid argument. You will have to do with better reasoning.

bruh read a book

I'm sure someone does, but I don't. But off the cuff, I'd side more with Mr. D on this one.

They both can be wrong. I see no confidence. 😅 just throwing ideas and elaborating.

From the video provided, it is genuinely impossible to derive what Noble is disagreeing on. Contextually, it seems like it implies that he's saying the genes are not "selfish" but within this video he doesn't say anything that connects to, or has baring on, what Dawkins means by the word selfish. It's a really odd clip tbh because I watched the whole thing waiting for the reveal and there's just nothing here. It's very odd.

@@StephenRichmond89 So it's not just me. Good. tavi.

@@StephenRichmond89 Yeah, I mean, I'm no expert on this topic, but this Noble guy (which I'd never heard of before) seemed to be going off on a tangent that didn't really have much to do with at least what I understand about Richard's basic argument.

😂

Elaborate.

Bruh 🤣

My cats name is mittens

Well genetic mutations are random and what we observe in organisms through natural selection is determined what works or doesn't on macro level! Tho some new study found plant can protect specific genes intentionally, not merely random mutations! But question is since even randomness can cause soft-determinism. Why and how does that plant do it?

Survival of 'the most pathetic' is preserved by either the unselfish gene or selfish gene, if an animal can make itself pathetic, another animal may look after it to save it fending for itself, like cute animals and toy dog breeds. I agree with your take on the selfish aspect, i mean there has to be examples of tonic and toxic selfishness as well as tonic and toxic unselfish generosity in society.

That's good insight, but I find that your argument doesn't really disqualify the usefulness of the term 'selfish', if you take it to mean 'whatever the gene needs to do in order to survive & replicate' (and whether or not it is good or bad for others & whatever support system it needs in order to thrive). I actually thought the term (selfish) was rather well-chosen in the scope of reaching the 'average reader', if you will.

@@gofai274 yes, so many still clinging onto debunked words, We know everything that mutates dies very quickly Evolution is an order, like ordering monkeys all over the planet to move thier tails to the front of the cortex OR all life shrink or grow by X% Its the same as an app on your phone, the Mother sends out an electromagnetic message to the Thalamus , which then rewrites the baby code in other Mothers Everything most people talk about is so out of focus , they actually believe they only have sound ears

apollo 16...

The darkest paint in the world.

might be black 2.0 paint

Gene editing.

And even the woman herself is quite intelligent!

@@mikefoster5277 I don't know her, so I'll take your word for it 😊

A better question than whether a gene is selfish or not. Granted, the latter question is good enough. And the answer is simple enough, too. A gene has no self, and as such can't be selfish. It simply exists and, sometimes, is duplicated.

By the way, this video was recommended to me, naturally, as I love biology almost as much as philosophy. But, having read the book "Selfish Gene" more than a couple of decades ago, I had already realized that the catchy title was just that. An early click-bait, so to speak. It was a subtle and possibly unconscious attempt to justify and absolve the selfish behavior we also see within and around us. But, I am yet to watch this video. I don't think I need to watch it. Do I? Be still a bit and peace, my friends.

When your genome was first replicated when your parents conceived you nobody asked your consent and yet here you are. Maybe your future replica will be glad they get to exist as well!

"My genome"? You don't own your genome. You can't - Think of the consequences for identical twins.

@@N.i.c.k.H It is most definitely mine. I own it. It's not my problem if you live in an uncivilised & barbaric country.

that is a great point, not a lot of popular science on biology focuses enough on the evolution of the process of evolution itself, and the fact that the period between the very first prokaryotes and the first eukaryotes was almost as long as the period between the first eukaryotes and human beings. So about 2 billion years from a protocell to develop a nucleus and become a true cell, and another 2 billion or so to go from the earliest single cells to multicellular complex life that recognizes and understands it is made of cells, creates the internet, and discusses said evolution of cells in internet comments. We've come a long ways, folks!

Yes. Maybe because Noble was Dawkins’ teacher?

Yup, And Richard displayed that in abundance! :)

He's more a propagandist than a biologist. The one thing he did get right is his stance on transgenderism.

Cricket Yes, Richard is a biologist, his academic qualifications are all in that subject, as is his subsequent scientific work. What made you ask?