Everything you know about genetics is wrong (Adam Rutherford)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 พ.ค. 2024
- A brief history of DNA, the story of genetics and how we're culturally predisposed to misunderstand it.
Adam Rutherford is a scientist, author, broadcaster and geek. On radio, he is the presenter of BBC Radio 4 (InSide Science) as well as many documentaries on scientific fraud, inheritance of intelligence, MMR and autism, human evolution, astronomy and art, and the evolution of sex. Being a self-claimed movie geek, he has also been scientific advisor to Björk's movie Biophilia Live,
Adam has a PhD in genetics, is a former Editor at the journal Nature, and will give a brief history of DNA, the story of genetics and how we're culturally predisposed to misunderstand it.
www.ub.uio.no/om/aktuelt/arran...
I love that scientists can constantly identify horrible journalism that deludes the public. I find it odd that no scientist ever speculates on why this is done or what benefit accrues to the news outlet. That being said I very much appreciate this lecture and as a medical doctor who enjoys genetics, I loved being schooled. Well done Dr. Rutherford.
Irrespective of all the rights and wrongs in the title, miss pronounced names etc, as a lay person I found this talk interesting and informative so thanks
For such a listenable, clearly clued and communicative man, that all encompassing, accusational title is ‘most unfortunate’
The headline should read, "Some things you think you know about genetics, may be incorrect".
Compared to what the average people knows about genetics it's like nothing.
I think the title is not meant to be taken literally.
Except without the comma.
'It ain't what you don't know that gets you in trouble. It's what you know for sure, that just ain't so.' -- Mark Twain
The number and impact of debunked tropes that still, effectively, 'rule' the world are tragic.
The proper way to think about what he's describing also just happens to be the proper way to think about how neurons in the brain express thoughts. And that's almost certainly not a coincidence. We once thought that there was a neuron for ever thought or memory, or at last a spot for it; if you were to labotomize that location,t he thought/memory would be gone, etc. But what actually happens is the thought/memory becomes clouded, a bit dimmer, lower resolution. The modern understanding of what's going on is that thoughts are patterns of activated neurons. A specific pattern of activation equates to a specific thought. If you cut of the brain out that is part of that pattern, the pattern, thus, gets less sharp.
In nature, patterns of how things work tend to repeat. And here, in biology, we see the same kind of mechanism. There are lots of genes, as there are lots of neurons in the brain. And the phenotypical traits they generate correspond to the pattern, not the individual genes. Thus, for most traits, if you take out one or two of the genes that contribute to it, the trait will become less pronounced, but will not completely go away.
Think of it as musical melody; it's quite similar. If you omit one note from a symphony, most people will not even notice. But as you omit or change more and more, it becomes more and more noticeable, until eventually you have a wholly different melody. Melody, thus, is an emergent property, a pattern in the notes, not the notes themselves. The pattern is the thing.
Just so, in both consciousness, the pattern in the neurons is the thing, not the neurons themselves. And just so, in biology, the pattern in the genes is the thing, the emergent trait, not the genes themselves.
And as for how you can get so many traits from only 21,000 genes, well, if you followed this comment, you see that, that's not impressive at all. After all, think of the number of melodies you can get from just 8 notes. You can make, practically speaking, infinite patterns out of them.
In summary: the patterns are the (Melodies/thoughts/expressed traits), and the little bits(notes/neurons/genes) are the substrate which can be arranged into the relevant patterns.
Any number of patterns can be created, and most are not useful(just as most patterns of notes are not melodic - they are cacaphony). But natural selection mechanisms and it's derivative mechanisms like human aesthetic preference, weed out all the non-functional patterns. If we define 'functionality' as simply 'the tendency to self-perpetuate,' we can see that it is inevitable, then - more or less tautological - that that which is 'functional' will become more common over time.
This is true of music, of thought patterns in humans, of phenotype traits from genes.
An important take-away might be that we really should be studying nature(that's what science is) in terms of, and from the perspective of, the patterns that are to be found it it. Not the bits. The patterns are the thing.
A tornado is a pattern of air. Air molecules are the bits. And at the smallest levels, those bits are also just patterns.
We, too, are patterns of patterns. Arrangements of arrangements. And to understand ourselves, or any of the rest of nature, we must understand the patterns.
This is why reductionist science(trying to understand the smallest bits and re-assemble/predict the macroscopic observation based on how the bits work) hit a wall around the 1950s and has barely progressed since. We keep studying the bits, and they don't have much more to tell us, except that they don't have much more to tell us. They were never what was most important. Studying oxygen, nitrogen and Co2 is never going to predict a tornado. They don't _do_ anything; they are just substrate.
We should be studying the patterns, how the patterns cause other patterns, and how patterns are made up of other patterns. Patterns of patterns of patterns. A fractal pattern of patterns. Then, science will jump forward again, by leaps and bounds.
I suspect we'll re-discover some things that ancient lost civilizations and cultures seem to a have understood. After all, humans naturally look for patterns.
Maybe we'll exterminate ourselves. Maybe we'll graduate from physical existence. Or maybe we'll travel around the galaxy in space ships. All I can tell you is that nature/reality is patterns of patterns. It's patterns all the way down and all the way up. And the patterns tend to repeat across what we think of as separate fields, like physics, psychology, biology, aesthetics, etc.
Physicists keep trying to find the Unified Field Theory, a 'theory of everything.' But if it's a theory of everything, it wont' be physics. It will also be biology, psychology, and all other fields, even underwater basket weaving. And thus, it is to their extreme credit, that they have actually manged through physics alone, to come eventually to more or less the right conclusion: That reality is just interactiong fields(This is'Field Theory, the basis of all modern understanding of how reality works.) Fields are multi-dimensional topographical patternsf of undulation. And what is the substrate from which these patterns are extant? It appears to be nothingness.
In other words, you don't even need a substrate. The patterns emerge out of nothing. All the sub-atomic particles of which everything else is composed, are themselves undulations in the topography of nothingness.
So the chicken/egg question of which is more fundamental, the patterns or the particles in which there is a pattern, has been solved. And the answer is the opposite of what everyone expected. The patterns come first; the smallest particles emerge _from_ them.
And we still don't want to think in terms of patterns.
@Armenias Thunk Church based BIG BANG..?...….so Hawking radiation and the destruction of black holes is not a contender for the infinite cycle of universe inflation and destruction ? it seems quite rational to me...no moronic church needed....or ego...
Interesting take. You have contributed to my understanding of the world
"In nature, patterns of how things work tend to repeat."
Can you say redundant?
you should be stood up there in the vid
Thanks for spending time expressing your very compelling thought.
To me at least, you're describing Process Philosophy in a very refreshing way, and if this is the case, thanks again!
I have been struggling for a while to conceptualize an ontology where the relations are prior to the relata, so very glad to see it from a new, unexpected angle.
The Habsburg family didn't completely die out in 1700, only the Spanish branch died out and the male austrian line died out in 1740 with Charles VI, Holy Roman Emperor. But there are ancestors of Maria Theresia still live today and they inherited the Austrian Habsburg lands by the pragmatic sanction of 1713 which allowed female heirs. The Habsburg family ruled over the HRE until it was dissolved in 1806 and after that over Austria which was renamed in Austria-Hungary, which they ruled until 1918.
The living Habsburgs are ugly and stupid too.
You mean descendants of Maria Theresa, I think.
@@richardofoz2167 Maria Theresia is her real name. Maria Theresa is the anglicized version.
What is a Hole Roman Emperor?
@@ru.lo.4904 It's just a type, I meant Holy.
"So, out of this, the greatest scientific endeavor that had yet been attempted the result was basically we didn't understand genetics. We thought we had the rules. Those grand unifying theories. We thought we understood inheritance. We thought we understood Mendelian genetics. And we thought we understood the genetic code."
Crick was neither a genius nor an idiot.
He had great great initiative and perseverance.
If that's what primarily makes for genius standard work then so be it.
That he didn't really know what dogma meant, is no surprise as he was a specialist.
Fascinating stuff very well presented. BUT would have been much more useful if the exhibits had been expanded fully on screen, as the detail is lost when projected from a fixed camera position.
36:45 "headlines do matter" Not everything you know about genetics is wrong. Headlines do matter.
Perhaps that's the point.
if headlines do matter, does matter do headlines?
@@Rob81k It does, every headline is composed of some type of matter doing headlines.
it is meant to provoke you to take the bait.
The Origin of Species: "The most important book ever written." No, the most important book on heredity ever written.
I say, this chap is deeply in love with his own perspective.
not even the most important book on heredity.
Actually, OTOOS doesn't have much about heredity per se. Darwin even admitted ignorance about it, but the key thing is that, regardless of mechanisms and exact patterns, artificial selection reshapes lineages, and roughly the same thing happens in the wild.
Treats it like a freaking religious text.
@@kaufmanat1 It's just a way of asserting that his field is 'the most important one ever'. "Deformation professionale" is the French term for it. To the policeman crime is rampant, to the doctor, disease is everywhere, etc. ( _Pace_ John Train). Here he elevates it a bit, though. I think his ego is a little too weak or too strong.
@@kaufmanat1 ... dogma ...
I can't read the headline at 32:41. Does anyone know what he is talking about here?
He isn't succeeding as a science communicator if I can't read his slides.
its just the lighting
Is it possible to search a genome and find phenotypes? I thought these were two separate domains while interrelated the phenotype must first be observed to find the genotype within the genome. Do I misunderstand the process?
A phenotype is an aspect of the organism such as having a backbone or blue eyes
About 20:50 , was he trying to remember the name of Craig Venter?
The word "everything" in the title is a bit strong - however, the view that the media is too quick to make unfounded reports is very valid - especially corporate media whose main goal is to support particular material interests of the people that own them.
clickbait.
The Media? Making Unfounded Reports?
It is clickbait, definitely, and quite clearly doesn't apply to anyone who knows a wee bit more than they remember from their junior high textbook all those years ago. Which, as it happens, is pretty representative of a lot of the reporting in the popular press.
Still, a nice talk well delivered for an interested though definitely not expert audience.
@@joschafinger126 singularity stuff ... got it from cern idea, looking for god partical.
It's a bit as if a journalist had a TED talk presentation saying "ten reasons why every headline is wrong and misleading. The seventh one might surprise you." And just to be clear, it wouldn't be hypocritical if the whole thing was a criticism of news headlines, havin its own headline as a joke illustrating the problem.
"So, out of this, the greatest scientific endeavour that had yet been attempted, the result was basically we didn't understand genetics. We thought we had the rules, those grand unifying theories. We thought we understood inheritance, we thought we understood mendelian genetics, and we thought we understood the genetic code. And in a sense we did. It's just that humans turned out to be much more complicated than anyone anticipated. Now, what that means is that the way we talk about genetics, at school, in general, in families, is not right. It means that we are fed culturally, we talk about inheritance in particular ways which don't really correspond to what we've discovered as geneticists."
Excellent comment.
Regarding the question on epigenetics and specifically how "Lamarckian Evolution " was a short lived phenomenon lasting only 3 or 4 generations. I dont see how something that is detectable for 3 or 4 generations can be quickly dismissed. More likely it is a vital level of adaptive capability that is but one of the ways in which an organism confers fitness on its offspring. Male sperm alleles continue to get longer till death and it seems to be experential coding that makes them longer and that is inheritable. Of course it also increases mutation risk too. I still think Lamarckian ideas have something in them.
The problem with epigenetic inheritance is that journalists and political activists are putting far more emphasis on it than geneticists are. The former are leading the public to think there is a huge effect from epigenetics to the point that it starts to become Neo-Lysenkoism through the back door.
@@michaels4255 "neo-lysenkoism" is more than anything real a straw-man (and a conspiracy theory of self-victimization/persecution) of anything questioning the validity of a racial hierarchy of races and other disputed biological hierarchies. A field of scientists not putting the same emphasis that journalists or activists put on a subject that's not their main scope doesn't really mean much. The general notion of lay people tends to be much more of everything being simply genetic, and then it's only natural that journalists or activists would put more focus on non-genetic aspects that are even more relevant for human health, and more actionable, even if one would consider eugenics morally acceptable.
@@petitio_principii No, the general public does not think "everything is genetic." Far from it, most of the time they underweight or ignore the genetic contribution and overweight the environmental, which is what they have been taught to do every since the disciples of Boas and Freud took over the social science department. You can hear it in their private conversations or remarks. The first explanation for individual or group differences that most of them jump to is purely environmental. Journalists and activists, far from acting as a corrective, are trying to perpetuate the legacy of early 20th century blank slatism by obstructing scientific enlightenment, and, yes, their political inclinations are certainly a big part of the reason why. In the wake of world war 2, we completely reconfigured our public policies, and coerced changes in private sector policies as well, based on assumptions of human genetic equality which implied that all human differences could only be an unjust legacy of current or past bad behavior by dominant groups. We need to admit that we were wrong, and public and private policies, and the curricula of our educational institutions, must be redesigned to take account of empirical data about hard wired human differences.
His arguments are not convincing enough. Hie last diagram seems twisted!
Crick and Watson didn't even give Rosalind credit dude. They were scumbags.
Yup, at least he mentioned Rosalind because I have come across many who don't, giving Crick and Watson full credit for something that they did not achieve without her work and input.
Yeah, and she didn't credit the person who actually made the image and breakthroughs in technique (Gosling). The image, and certainly Franklin, were just cogs that slightly shortened the time to results, instead of some hero as revisionist gynocentric history makes her out to be...
@@rasherbilbo452 Credit where credit due...
Excellent presentation, Adam. Fascinating.
i enjoyed the lecture. i wish the slide show was visible.
This guy uses superlatives loosely and varies his stand on issues very easily...which understandably disappoints...
Thank you, Dr. Rutherford. This was a wonderful presentation.
Brilliant, thanks. Having never understood this stuff I'd wondered about some claims, but the argument was always you can't argue with DNA. So much misunderstanding around, so much we don't know. Nice to hear from someone who is really trying to make sense of it. I wonder why so many dislikes for such a brilliant talk, fascinating.
How does one/two design for smarts?
He uses the word "complex" freely throughout.. but secular science doesn't define that word rigorously.. so what he is saying.? Why doesn't secular science define the word complex..?
Or is it better to remain ignorant when the truth embarrasses eh..
It's complicated :/
Complexity has both an everyday meaning and, since the 1980's, a more precise meaning in physics ("complex adaptive systems"). In physics, complexity is not synonymous with complicatedness, since many complicated things are not complex as complexity theorists use that word. But in everyday speech, it is synonymous.
@@michaels4255 Confirming what I said.. if your "more precise meaning in physics" of complexity is "complex adaptive systems" I think you will find that at least some people here would be able to recognise that as CIRCULAR REASONING..! That's defining a word by using the word itself, a bit like pulling yourself up with your own boot laces. If that is what you call "precision" in physics I can only advise a change of subject.
@@IanWilkinson No.. its only science dominated by Philosophical Naturalism that makes it complicated.. Ludwig Boltzmann defined it in around 1900 based on the second law of thermodynamics..
COMPLEX = ORDERED = LOW ENTROPY = IMPROBABLE
They all mean the same thing but try and find this anywhere in any modern scientific publications..
What in the world is secular science?
H.L. Mencken was a reporter for the Scopes Trial. How could you not know that....
If there is anyone like myself who couldn't make it through 'On the Origin of Species' by Darwin, you may find 'The Origin', by Irving Stone much more readable and enjoyable. Even if it's classified as a novel, there are some enchanting facts and beautifully written passages as he takes you through Darwin's adult life.
I found this to be so interesting. I wish he would have discussed "junk dna". The speaker
communicated very well on a very difficult subject.
"Junk DNA" is a totally misleading term. Some of our genome codes for functional RNA, such as rRNA and tRNA. The order of bases for these is not decided by the neat 1 codon = 1 amino acid as for a gene, but by the free energy of the single-stranded RNA molecule folded by base-pairing with itself into the complex secondary structures required to achieve the function of the ribosome, transfer RNA and other natural ribozymes. I have to say, this lecture seems curiously dated in 2015. I had to stop it half way through. Clickbaity title, laboured points for beginners. Bonus fact, LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor) since has been elucidated as a methanogenic bacterium, but it still represents the end of a long journey from pre-biotic chemistry.
@Tim Webb mito and Y chromosome are under very strong selection. That explains the lack of superfluous "junk" sequences
@Tim Webb i have two bio degrees. Is that enuf homework?
It has always concerned me that people suggest much of a genetic code is meaningless repeats, or is no longer functional. I suppose that could be correct. But, regarding repeating codes, is it possible the repeats are there because the more repeats there are of a code, the more something is manufactured using that code? The idea here is that, in specific situations at specific times, an organism manufacturing something might be programmed by its repeating code to manufacture not just 1 molecule of it, but some number of molecules of it. And, regarding no longer functional codes, is it possible code seeming to be no longer functional might also serve some other purposes? And 1 other unrelated question I’ve had is, do larger organisms of the same species have more cells, or larger cells, and why?
Heredity and selection do not work on the level of the species, or even on that of the organism, but on the level of the gene, the individual snippet of DNA that's likely to be passed on as a block. Reduplication or not doing anything really is very unlikely to be weeded out by preventing the organism reproducing. In fact, reduplication can be a boon as long as the copying mechanism can spot deleterious mutations and use a different copy instead. It's not about making more of the same, but being able to make that specific thing whatever, at least potentially.
A lot of "junk" DNA actually does appear to have regulatory functions, though: apparently useless DNA that turns out to influence how protein-coding genes are read and copied, or how often, or when. Trick is, that kind of exons don't seem to use a language that's in any way consistent. Plus, there's still stuff that simply stays on because it's good at being copied but devoid of any observable effect at all.
@@joschafinger126 Thank you very much.
I definitely agree that genetics and phenotipical trait inheritance are complicated problems and a healthy skepticism is appropriate.
It is interesting the correlation between Hex Hacking a program and figuring out how the Genome works (change a piece, see what changes). In such, I wonder if the same means used by computer scientists to reverse already compiled code (in Hex) to an actual program language output that is readable by humans could be used to "De-Compile" the RNA/DNA coding?
What's up with the channels name?
I believe it was inbred with a sister channel, which was already inbred and is now sterile, and likely impotent, as well as inbred.
Inbred.
My personal understanding of Genetics is miniscule compared with what we've seen lately from Virologists.
About as much as I can understand that unless you are using what you think you've seen and heard of "settled science" in a scientific discipline, you may as well remain an Objective Observer staring at Verisimilitude.., for a while, if it's relevant.
Holographic Principle In-form-ation formulae of superimposed resonances of e-Pi-i interference positioning context of Actuality, and the observable aspects of Infinity available to study, means having a practical philosophical re-cognition technique according to the application.
The audio is very much out of sync
13:50..when you really look at it, doing it's thing, and you realize that carbon is of course the go to element for building stable, complex organic molecules, and you also realize that all the other atoms have very specific ways in which they bond with and react with other molecules and atoms, it becomes quite clear that, perhaps, this was the ONLY way that information could be coded and replicated GIVEN the specific ways in which atoms interact, complex ?, sure ! but it is clearly the most simple and energy efficient system that lends itself to replication, error checking and fixing etc. So, perhaps, it might NOT be such a big surprise when we spread our wings and explore exoplanets around other small G2 type stars in the habitable region...DNA or RNA based life I suspect will be the mode of life, just as we can be confident that it will undoubtedly be Carbon based we can also be confident that DNA and RNA will be there, I seriously doubt that anyone has ever managed to invent another system, artificially of course, that uses any other group of elements in an energy efficient way that can store and replicate itself, in a thermodynamically favorable way. So, you could say, that DNA and RNA and all the associated machinery of the Ribosomes etc. is simply a naturally occurring EMERGENT manifestation of the properties of these atoms and molecules, ie; this was unavoidable, a simple quality of these substances, given the right temperatures, solvents, conditions etc.
The concept that traits are highly genetically determined (“in the blood”) is more common in the general public than in geneticists.
So Gene Roddenberry had the Star Trek gene? :-)
Maybe we are thinking of genes wrong...maybe genes are more like bases which different things can be expressed depending on something we haven't considered...
Only the strict definition of Species is wrong. It is true that the "idea" of Species is a construct, but it is a highly useful idea / division among living things, and for the most part the current definition holds up. So now we just need to tweak it a bit. We need such divisions based on shared charateristics as a means to facilitate discussion.
In overall this is a nice and smooth lecture, however frankly, the only new things I learned from it, just because I'm normally not that interested in genetics, is 1st - that human gene pool is surprisingly small - ~20000 genes, and 2nd - that specific genetic inheritance line may terminate by itself after several generations. It actually provoked me to have a look at "human genome" Wiki article (as for today: March 2020) and what I found out is that these ~20000 genes are actually only the protein-coding ones, but the "gene" term encompasses also regulatory RNA sequences and pseudo-genes, thus the gene pool actually grows to about 40-50 thousand, depending on particular database. What I understand then is: 1. considering the speed of genetic science development, this lecture is already old, 2. it's for general public and 3. the protein-coding genes were emphasized to better visualize wrongness of the single trait-gene correspondence concept.
That last thing is actually the weakest motif in the lecture, but probably chosen as contributing nicely to the subject: "Everything you know about genetics is wrong". It's early on supported by claims of cultural bias, bad cultural programming and... inbreeding within the House of Habsburg. None of these things I find valid or fortunate, what I'll explain below in points.
1) Charles the 2nd of Spain died in 1700 and the main line of House of Habsburg became extinct in 1740 with the death of Charles the 6th. This was obviously long before anyone knew anything about genetics and ppl just followed the ancient observations of natural trait inheritance. At least, as was explicitly admitted, aside from terrible genetic mess, Charles was able to inherit his characteristic Habsburg Jaw. I hoped that towards the end, this thread will be somehow reconciled with the overall message, but I was wrong. Therefore, it doesn't work well for the lecture and could be entirely spared.
2) I completely don't get some "cultural bias" being the cause for bad genetics knowledge, even if someone isn't really into the science itself. By defining and punishing incest and explicitly discouraging ppl from seeking of, and as of today even ordering/programming "prefect" offspring, good old culture is all for good genetics. By its standards, the Habsburg's conduct could be described as permanent incest.
3) As for bad cultural programming, I started to understand the claim when news headlines appeared. Apparently, just mere fact of existence and activity of a news agency, makes it contribute to the culture - right? WRONG! Most of these agencies, especially of leftist profile, actively and intentionally destroy the culture. To contribute to something, you 1st have to uphold it. In case of culture, it's the subject of values and principles. If you constantly promote adultery, abortion, sexualization of public space, early sexualization of children, even incest, then you're contributing to cultural demise. So, showing some bullsh*t Guardian article isn't again working well for this lecture. BTW: perhaps the terrified liberal adulterer gene is actually a gene of excessive follow-the-herd behavior, which makes ppl follow the mainstream liberal/socialist current?
4) I can't remark anyone claiming lately that a single gene is responsible for a singe trait. Perhaps, the "gene" was once defined that way in phylogenetics, because it was purely observational, but then it's just naming clash between old and new genetics and has nothing to do with culture and everything to do with progress of science.
5) Recapping, if you claim "Everything we know about genetics is wrong" because of bad, biased culture - you're wrong. I'd say, almost everything I know about genetics is true, and still the culture, not science, is guarding good genetics and healthy society.
Finally, I have a comment regarding these 2 things I learned: small gene pool size and termination of inheritance lines. If you consider that genome has finite informational capacity and density, it's no surprise that termination happens. After several generations, genes just start being overwritten and fade in genetic noise, so you can't trace them to a particular ancestor. Therefore we shouldn't say that we inherit from everyone, but that we just can't say to whom we owe them.
No talk can go into every detail. But I get a feeling that the things he mentions, and the things he leaves out are a bit designed to skew the conclusions of the viewer. You can tell he is a journalist from his relation to truth. And from his misleading headline. Truth is a tool to him. And no, being a journalist does not make him qualified to say that his scientific field is being treated better or worse than any other field by the media.
But about that "warrior gene", he failed to mention that amount of copies of the gene matters, not just which variant. And such strong correlations that has been seen with a gene can't simply be ignored. Of course there are other genes at play, and environemental factors. But he wanted the listener to believe that genes can't predict behavioural tendencies at all. But they do predict likelyhoods.
And his statistics were even more misleading. On average you can say that everyone shares an ancestor with everyone else just 3000 years back. But since he does not want to outright lie about it he instead paints an incomplete misleading picture and leaves it at that, and thus makes the listener believe that we all are closely related. He doesn't mention how miniscule the geneflow has been during that time in certain parts of the world. And how non-existant they in some cases are. Statistics about averages can't be used to modell reality in a way that makes you able to say anything for certain about extremes. The geneflow between subsaharan africa and the rest of the world has been miniscule up until just recently. And there are lots of places where people has been isolated. Khoisan tribes might be completely free from outside geneflow for many thousands of years. Aboriginals who hasn't any non-aboriginal ancestors the last few hundred years does not have any non-aboriginal ancestors for many thousands of years. And again. A few ancestors among millions means that the geneflow is minisculexor non-existant. But he wants you to think otherwise.
It is clear that he views science and truth as a tool. He wants to tone down the importance of genes and wants us to think that there is no genetic difference that can matter between people. But he uses strawmans, and logical fallacies to bend the truth about these matters.
No single gene determines behaviour, that is true. But a single gene might be important.
14:40 best factoid ever. the central dogma of molecular biology is named that because Francis Crick didn't know what dogma meant.
Make fun of us Physicists for lacking a GUT? Hmm. One of your three theories for Biology you’ve said is wrong, another one is based on the first one (not independent, so also wrong), and the third doesn’t adequately explain all observations. So Biologists are still looking for a true GUT, and they’re so thick they don’t realize none of their theories are correct! That’s not fair: it’s only this particular speaker who’s that clueless.
As a paleontologist, my field of science is the most misrepresented in the public media.
Riveting talk. As much as treaties on the state of science awareness, or lack of it, as of genetics.
This is bookmarked and a keeper.
There isn't a single concept of species. The absolute barrier to interbreeding "only exists" at relatively distant or more harshly diverged species (the "total" of those species is the bio-species or cenospecies). But relatively closely related species (eco-species, most species one can name are eco-species) often can interbreed, with varying degrees of viability. Not necessarily even that closely related, varies from group to group and maybe some other specificities. We've split from chimps for something like 10 to 5 million years, some hypothesize(d) interbreeding at 1 million years ago. There are some bird species that I believe may have split around the time that dinosaurs got extinct, and can interbreed. And there's some fish species separated for more than 100 million years that can still produce viable hybrids. None of that is tremendously new.
hmmm, so genetics aside, a big influence is the social interactions both positively and negatively effecting the out the outcomes.(e.g. most criminals are made by their environment or at least by the stress's that accompany the situation and how the individuals cope?).
That family tree reminds me of Ray Stevens's "I'm my own grandpa".
Okay MacDonald... The simple fact is, you are inbreed and projecting...
Wat is with the completely unrelated images on his screen? Woody Guthrie??
Adam Lanza was a Photoshop character created by Ryan Lanza, ergo not a real person.
John B You are absolutely correct! The kids were also creations from younger photos of older kids they then claimed were siblings. To bad they didn’t give the photos modern clothing! LOL-those kids were all wearing clothes from 15-20 years previous! The fashion police are part of what made me realize the photoshopping initially, But I knew it was fake as soon as it happened. That much I was instantly aware of-but I still had to prove it to myself and a few other people that cared. So we dug deeply. The other odd thing was how the parents (all new to town) mostly were buying houses at extremely reduced prices, and their leases were mostly signed on a previous Christmas day, a day no office is open anywhere in the government...so...riiiiight. But people all think they’re correct about everything when they are massively under-informed.
You guys got it. I Appreciate this side conversation. A few more points... The parents never saw thier "murdered" clildren. ALL closed coffin funerals. No doctors pronounced deaths, - I believe the sherriff? did.?? I volunteer as a 1st responder, and ONLY A DOCTOR can pronounce death. No one cleaned up blood, a biohazard, i.e. no contract or budget dollars spent. Most parents were 2nd rate actors that could "perform" i.e. lie, in front of camera, then advocate for gun control. Many photos were admitted to be photo shopped.
No, not the fringes of Europe like eg southern Italy, Sardinia, Greek islands, Finland and Ashkenazi Jews. The MRCA for them compared to other Europeans are actually more than 2 millennia ago if not more. We can see this based on IBS scores.
My Dad used to drive us past a place written on its bridge painted with big white capital letters 'HOME RULE FOR CRICK'. Near Northampton. I never knew exactly what it meant at the time.
I don't exactly what you meant by the earwax example, but I am half-Asian, half-European. When I was young my earwax was more Asian. Now that I am older, 61yo, my earwax is more European.
Great presentation ,, Happy you tried to instill the fact that much about genetics isn't magic ,, a test can't tell you everything claimed or written about, I learned much more than that tho,, I will look for the book.
14:52 dogma - a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.
------- something held as an established opinion
If you are trying to understand the misinformation regarding genetics in society, you should probably being to understand statistics since there is a significant overlap in the ways they are both used. By looking at it for more than 4 minutes, you'd realize that the prevalence for "spree killings" is highly overstated in media. There is A LOT of massaged data and cherry picked information showing that these instances only ever see increases sporadically while the trend for any kind of killing has been steadily decreasing for the past century.
If you stare at that animated rotating helix long enough, it will begin to rotate in the opposite direction!
why the fuck is the sound and vision not synced?
"Everyone knows this" "Of course you know this". Might want to take your own advice about headlines at 45:53? Maybe title the talk: "Things everyone already knows about genetics"?
THIS IS FIVE YEARS OLD........AND YOU ARE A FAKER " EVERYONE ALREADY KNOWS".....ANOTHER MILLENNIAL KNOW IT ALL....SHEESH .
Enjoyed this. Good style.
He needs to do the same thing with Jersey cattle and many wild quail or other birds or other wild animals. Which are inbred. But if you look at the beauty and perfection of the jerseys, which almost died out, they had to inbreed the remainder to gain the breed back. BUT if these animals are properly fed and have adequate minerals and vitamins, they come out just fine. The Sandhill cranes and California Condor went through the same thing.
your funny chum, we are human race and are/should not get our daughter pregnant, in the cow race, the mother should try not to make a baby with its son etc...
I suggest that there has never been a more massive project than the Manhattan project. CERN by comparison is trivial.
When you first questioned the Danny Lewin bix cutter narrative...was a very interesting concept...what better hero to honor than an american born idf soldier?... I'm a on believer in "coincidences"...so many manufactured stories that we've been spoonfed over many years... I began questioning the validity of the "stories"...at 11 yrs old...i remember the date when i noticed an elephant in the room...it was November 22nd 1963.... when the major players showed up in Dallas....and continued to be lurking around every criminal crisis since...i believe you are right on with your thoughts on the connection between lesin and his pal paul sagan.... I'm sure it's just a coincidence...wait... there are no coincidences... cheers from Mexico # go for the gold
Misleading title
1:00:36 "I now believe that the whole concept of species is _flawed_ and wrong and is desperately in need of revision."
*Yay!* This confession is why I'm giving a thumbs up in spite of some silliness.
"Yay!" is not the kind of reaction I want any scientist to have when talking about potentially overhauling a whole paradigm, there is a lot of politics involved in how genetics is talked about and it muddles the science.
@@colloredbrothers, all of academia agreed with your sentiment back when Galileo insisted he had evidence that the earth went around the sun.
Dr. Rutherford, has anyone put forward that the demise of many species and sub-species might likely have been the result of inbreeding? Seeing what happened to the Habsburgs it seems likely that this sort of thing would surely happen to small groups who split off from their parental populations, but how then do new species get started? I thought every new species sprung out of a few individuals who had become separated from the larger group but had forged out a different means for survival that lead to subsequent generations adapting to differing environments.
That,s. what came to mind for me also. Small tribes hidden in jungles must have rules to survive or they let Interlopers in. ,or as we say perished..
"Reports at the time suggested that it would be a matter of months before we had established the cause of every genetic disease and possibly cured many of them. That was said in July 2000...Actually the greatest reveal from the human genome project was effectively, that we didn't really understand how genetics work at all."
Reports at the time suggested many and often contradictory things. Reports can be found that say almost anything. Reports of unsited reports are not interesting.
So long time speajer keep saying we dont know . I know we dont know tgats why im studing subject keep jumping alound so long time to get to point. Anyway thank you so much we come from unknown genes that was eye opening.
Tune in at twenty-four minutes to hear what you don't know.
So there are thousands of non-active-repetitive DNA that do nothing? Sounds to me like a partial erasure of a computer file. I wonder if anyone is attempting to fill this 'blank' space with anything.
Have no idea what I am talking about of course. Just a lay chap chewing the fat.
@@jimparr01Utube read some Dawkins
What he’s saying is that he doesn’t know what a large portion of those genes do
@@jimparr01Utube in a way it's a bit like the DNA is a library to make an organism, but it just so happens that the shelves of this library are also just improvised with "literally unused" books, for part of the structural support.
Ginger is not a disease, err. As you guessed I am a redhead/ginger, similar to the girl in the newspaper article, but according to a recent dna test I don't have the gene/s, (
I have many, many red-headed people in my family - my father, his brother, his sister, a first cousin, a grand-newphew, a grand aunt and on and on. My 23 and medna analysis said I come from a family with no red-heads. Ha, ha! Although I have to say the report was accurate in many other ways.
More than "the classic concept" of species being wrong, a common misconception about the concept of species is wrong, that it entails complete hybrid inviability even for closely related species.
Yes, the line between species and race (also called sub-species) is a blurry one, and sometimes debatable in particular cases.
@@michaels4255 REALLY ? RACE IS THE SAME AS SPECIES ?
@@salamjihad3449 no, "race" is just roughly "phenotypically noticeable lineages" within the human species. And much less distinct than biological sub-species for perhaps most species (even though taxonomical rankings do not entail an absolute metric). For example, chimpanzees _(Pan troglodytes)_ from different sides of a river differ more genetically than someone from Japan differs from someone from Kenya. If you google for genetic trees of hominids (orangutans, gorilas, chimps, bonobos, and humans), it's all very tree/bush-like for most of the other species, a big trees with miniature tree-like branches, except for the human branch, that looks more like a tiny dandelion, except for neanderthals somewhat farther back, and not as separated as some lineages of chimpanzees.
Things are somewhat counter-intuitive even between humans alone, like with Europeans and Nigerians being more closely related than Nigerians and South-African bushmen (San people).
@@petitio_principii DISTANCE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE % OF RELATIONS !!
@@petitio_principii DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT THE HELL YOUR TALKING ABOUT ? LOL
So that's why Elizabeth Warren has a tiny tiny bit.
Any Spanish speakers amongst (sic) you? And then he pronounces the word "loca" incorrectly - jajajaja.
Minden, ami elhangzott egy biológus egyetemistának nem újdonság. Kiragadta a Habsburg családfa esetét, amiről Czeizel Endre részletesebben már évekkel ezelőtt megirt. A szerző nem foglalkozik az ember eredetéről, evolúciójáról...
The Universal Rule according to academic "dogma" should have been the
caveat for the world to heed? Their (academic) Emperor in this case is the
Pontificating Roman, head PAPAL master (Papa = father + L = god). ...
We shouldn't forget that Pompous 'Pope' created this systemic doctrine of peered reviewed learning, by raising his hand and declaring the worlds intellectual property is theirs (unam sanctam) and thus all the Alma-mater's (‘generous mother's’) were born of the FATHER. ...Alma (Souls Nutrition) aka food 4 thought is to be authorized, peered reviewed, sanctioned into church approved doctrines, and their edifices of "LOWER Learnings" in the sense of perpetuity, aka "Forever learning never knowing" This video espoused this same Academic blather coupled to endless theories & impedance based "Leanings?" That has to reify space, and waste our
time. ...the periodic table is "Periodic", intermittent, fluctuating variables of frequency. ...all the rest is pure, puerile, poppycock. Peace ~Inertia
THE INDIVIDUAL SPERM IS PROBABLY GENETICALLY DIFFERENT FROM EACH OTHER....JUST AS THE INDIVIDUAL EGG IS PROBABLY DEFFERENT FROM EACH OTHER AS WELL......SO THE COMPEXITY COMES FROM THE SHEER NUMBERS OF BOTH THAT WHEN THEY COME TOGETHER THEY CREATE ONE INDIVIDUAL PERSON THUS MAKES THIS PERSON A ONE IN A BILLION.
32:05 We are not all equal at birth. Intelligence is HUGELY heritable by genetics of your biological mother and father.
Why do people post material and then insult its possible audience by making broad generalizations instead of using qualifiers? How do you know what I know about genetics?
"That takes us up to the 1980s where we had really seriously begun to elucidate how biology works, how life works. We had established effectively three grand unifying theories of biology which all say the same thing... The first is evolution by natural selection by Darwin. Actually the first chronologically came a few years before that, and it's called cell theory... Cell theory very clearly states two things which are universally true; All life is made of cells. And cells only ever come from existing cells, with one exception which is the origin of life. This is just a universal rule, and it's good to have universal rules because it means you can set up a framework from which you can conduct your next questions...And the third one, universal genetics; All living organisms all of those cells since LUCA for the last four billion years have used exactly the same system to encode their proteins and to reproduce. So, you know we've got it. By the end of the 1970s we understood how all of biology worked. Except it turned out to be much more complicated than anyone anticipated."
"Everything living cell comes from another living cell , except for the first one". He must have considered that at some stage, but ....
What came first, the chicken or the egg? Altered EM field, "The Ebner Effect".
Many a man has come to similar conclusions about how familial traits are passed down through the generations, through lines of reasoning that originate in contemplation of the wrinkliness of their peas. So I don't see Mendlesson as unique in this regard.
min.:44:you are not your genes and genes are not your destiny! also,some one remembers the media hype about the gay gene?
The one that they never found and still cant find despite the 'overwhelming proof' that homosexuality is genetic and not socialized(or traumatized)?
I had some audio cables and put them away in a box. Taking them out again, they got jumbled up, and it took me ages to unravel them. They were only a few feet long. Human DNA is 2 billion base pairs long. About 2 metres? How come it never gets hopelessly tangled and never breaks? I am happy with the scientific understanding of how DNA is composed and how replication occurs etc. I am just puzzled as to whether anyone has an explanation as to how it remains orderly.
isn't this presentation just a cut and paste of articles written for the guardian and the bbc and other news outlets; or maybe i saw this on tedx.
I can not believe this guys total lack of scientific “complexity “. Boy did he overuse this word. I can not fathom that he was an editor of anything. As a high school biology teacher, with a master’s degree in physics and a b.s. in journalism (I was a tv anchorwoman for ten years); trust me; my 9th grade students could do circles around his lack of content and depth. Heck, he isn’t even regurgitating a basic high school textbook that I use. I am stunned and appalled. What a dumming down. Wow. I am really trying to think of something positive to say, but good lord man go back to University. Namaste
Still no explanation of morphogenesis in genetics. Also a bit scientism biased saying The Origin of Species is the greatest book ever written.
So you’re saying a “code” spontaneously develops via evolution? I wish a best-selling novel would evolve in my word program.
Theoretically, for that to happen, an algoritm must appear out of a random mass and manifest a reproduction scheme combined with the logical equivalent of what's called genetic drift in biology.
It gets freaky when your binary creature finds a way to detect and manipulate the physical world. ^^
"So you’re saying a “code” spontaneously develops via evolution? "
Its not really a 'code', we call it one because it looks a bit like one.
" I wish a best-selling novel would evolve in my word program."
It is not self or co reproducing. Life is just self or co reproducing chemistry. The 'code' likely did evolve over time. Just not spontaneously or by magic. By chemical affinity and likely in the RNA first with DNA coming later.
We don't have to know how life started to know that it has been doing so for billions of years. How ever it started it DOES evolve and 'information' DOES accumulate in the DNA.
How evolution works:
First step in the process.
Mutations happen - There are many kinds of them from single hit changes to the duplication of entire genomes, the last happens in plants not vertebrates. The most interesting kind is duplication of genes which allows one duplicate to do the old job and the new to change to take on a different job. There is ample evidence that this occurs and this is the main way that information is added to the genome. This can occur much more easily in sexually reproducing organisms due their having two copies of every gene in the first place.
Second step in the process, the one Creationist pretend doesn't happen when they claim evolution is only random.
Mutations are the raw change in the DNA. Natural selection carves the information from the environment into the DNA. Much like a sculptor carves an shape into the raw mass of rock. Selection is what makes it information in the sense Creationists use. The selection is by the environment. ALL the evidence supports this.
Natural Selection - mutations that decrease the chances of reproduction are removed by this. It is inherent in reproduction that a decrease in the rate of successful reproduction due to a gene that isn't doing the job adequately will be lost from the gene pool. This is something that cannot not happen. Some genes INCREASE the rate of successful reproduction. Those are inherently conserved. This selection is by the environment, which also includes other members of the species, no outside intelligence is required for the environment to select out bad mutations or conserve useful mutations.
The two steps of the process is all that is needed for evolution to occur. Add in geographical or reproductive isolation and speciation will occur.
This is a natural process. No intelligence is needed for it occur. It occurs according to strictly local, both in space and in time, laws of chemistry and reproduction.
There is no magic in it. It is as inevitable as hydrogen fusing in the Sun. If there is reproduction and there is variation then there will be evolution.
Some books to get you started:
Why evolution is true - Jerry A. Coyne
THIS BOOK IN PARTICULAR to see just how messy and undesigned the chemistry of life is.
Herding Hemingway's Cats: Understanding how Our Genes Work
Book by Kat Arney
This shows new organs evolving from previous organs. Limbs from fins.
Your Inner Fish
Book by Neil Shubin
Wonderful life : the Burgess Shale and nature of history / Stephen Jay Gould
Life on a Young Planet: The First Three Billions Years of Evolution on Earth Andrew H, Knoll
Ethelred Hardrede
Ethelred Hardrede it was very nice of you to share all this. I can tell you’re as passionate in your beliefs as I am in mine, but I’ve stopped believing most of mainstream science, because I was taught that science involves hypothesis, followed by experimentation. The THEORY of evolution has yet to prove itself through testing and analysis. In primary school, I learned that the periods of geologic rock layers are determined by which fossils are found there and that the age of fossils is determined by the rock layer in which they are found. I call that circular reasoning, not science. I see the same thing happening in cosmology, astrophysics, archeology, you name it. For example, a black hole sucks everything in but somehow can also shoot out jets. First, prove to me black holes exist. This is just illogical to me. I’m ok with theories but don’t teach them as fact. And don’t pile new, made up explanations on top of old, unproven theories. Eventually the whole thing collapses under the weight of its absurdity. Don’t even get me going on man made climate change! I’m also supposed to believe primitive people built the Great Pyramid with primitive tools. Really? I’m from Missouri so please show me. I could go on like this for days. I don’t believe the genetic code is only “a bit like” a code. It’s a code. Which logically would suggest it didn’t write itself. We will have to agree to disagree. 🙂
@@donnafoster2022
"I can tell you’re as passionate in your beliefs "
No, you are 'telling' something that is not true. I am going on EVIDENCE, not belief.
"but I’ve stopped believing most of mainstream science, "
See above.
", because I was taught that science involves hypothesis, followed by experimentation.
This is at least partly true. The hypotheses are based on the evidence. Usually.
" In primary school, I learned that the periods of geologic rock layers are determined by which fossils are found there "
You did NOT learn that in primary school, its BS you got from Creationist sites. It is false. The age of rocks can often be directly measured with radiometric dating. Yet Creationists, who DO engage in circular thinking, need to lie that science goes on circular thinking. Again you did NOT get that in primary school, unless it was a Creationist school. Geology is hardly touched in any primary school.
" I call that circular reasoning, not science. "
Since it is false that is a false conclusion.
"I see the same thing happening in cosmology, astrophysics, archeology, you name it. "d
You see the same lies about all real science on Creationist sites. Science does not use circular reasoning but Creationists DO.
"For example, a black hole sucks everything in but somehow can also shoot out jets. First, prove to me black holes exist. This is just illogical to me"
Science does not do proof, it does evidence and proving anything to a closed mind tends to be futile. You don't understand the physics of the jets, indeed scientists don't either but they are NOT from the black hole. They are from the accretion disc. That is what logic shows. You are not using logic and likely don't know jack about the accretion disc.
"I’m ok with theories but don’t teach them as fact. "
You don't know what a theory in science, either. Life evolves, that IS a fact. We have ample evidence. HOW it evolves is theory and we have ample evidence that the key is natural selection.
" And don’t pile new, made up explanations on top of old, unproven theories."
I did none of that. Theories are NEVER proved, they are supported by evidence. Theories CAN be disproved and evolution by natural selection has not been disproved in the over 150 years since it was first proposed. In science a theory is as good as it gets because they fit the evidence. Unlike the Bible.
"Don’t even get me going on man made climate change!"
I am sure that you are just as ignorant on that as you are on evolution, biology and geology. Deniers always are in one way or another.
" I’m also supposed to believe primitive people built the Great Pyramid with primitive tools. Really? "
You are supposed to go evidence and the evidence is that they did. Only the ignorant deny it. The only thing we are not sure about is if they used levels as well as ramps. We KNOW they used ramps.
"I’m from Missouri so please show me. "
You are from ignorance. You can look all this up on REAL science and archaeology sites. Quit depending on sites that just plain misrepresent, at best, the evidence.
"I could go on like this for days."
The ignorant always can. I can go on the actual evidence for years.
"I don’t believe the genetic code is only “a bit like” a code. It’s a code"
Your beliefs are not based on evidence. It LOOKS a bit like a code but it is not as codes exist for TWO WAY communication. DNA is not method of two way communication. Yes I am aware that the term 'code' is even used in biochemistry books. The authors are not knowledgeable about how real codes are used. It is largely a term of convenience. as they cannot be THAT ignorant on the subject of CODE. There are TWO meanings for the word code. One is disguised data, and DNA is definitely is not disguised. The other is in computer programming. DNA does NOT tell anything what to do. It is simply transcribed to RNA and that is EITHER transcribed to proteins or does things as RNA or its does nothing except get recycled. Which happens to a lot of RNA, so it does not have an intelligent design.
"Which logically would suggest it didn’t write itself. "
You need to take a class in logic as you have both bad logic and false premises. DNA is not written. It is inherited. Barring RNA viruses of course and in that case its transcribed from RNA that was not written.
"We will have to agree to disagree. 🙂"
Because you are going on nothing but ignorance and nonsense from Creationist sites and I am going on evidence and reason. Read the books and get less ignorant.
There was no Great Flood so we KNOW the Bible was written by ignorant men and don't pretend that you are not here to support your religion. You are and we both know that.
Ethelred Hardrede
@@donnafoster2022 Specially for you: proverbs 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings.
Looks like we aren't expected to blindly accept or reject fundamentals without understanding them...
Your literalistic narrow interpretation of scripture is rather near betrayal of your apparent religion than it's anything of use. It propagates ignorance in the name of...
Title: "Everything you know about genetics is correct, but there is more.."
Actually this is still bullshit, and they have no clue how it works.
@@AnAncient76
"and they have no clue how it works."
Yes they do. YOU don't.
@@runethorsen8423
"This entire analysis is based on incomplete information ."
There is no such thing as complete information.
". so no, they are guessing "
No. They are reasoning from the evidence they have.
"but asserting their guesswork as fact.... "
They, did no such thing. YOU are doing that.
"making them liars ...."
See, you did EXACTLY what you accused others of. And no wonder since you think its a good thing to post idiotic videos of that utter ass Tucker.
Ethelred Hardrede
@@EthelredHardrede-nz8yv nice work
Or "everything you know about making misleading headlines while indirectly trying to poke fun at misleading headlines is wrong, particularly when the subject is genetics."
Highly interesting!
Everything i know is wrong? rather misleading, 1 or 2 pieces of trivia. but no more. As a science communicator your are seriously missing.
Did he basically say the result of the Human Genome Project was 42?
Adam, I think you do an injustice to epigenetics in only mentioning methylation. Epigenetics was known to be much more complex than this even ten years ago when I attended seminars on it. There are dozens of different types of epigenetic modification, and they are turned on and off, deposited and removed by enzymes, and interact in complex ways. They are doing something important, so don't discount anything until we know what! I'de like to question your assertion that we are all (pretty much) related to (pick a famous person). Humans were, until recently, much more inbred than is commonly recognised. As a Yorkshireman I see this clearly - I can recognise a Yorkshireman, or a Welshman etc, by facial features and by temperament (I would say there are several classes of Yorkshireman I can recognise). This is because common people (unlike kings and queens, and your ancestors) did not travel outside their own village throughout hundreds of years, and so mated only with the local population. This created evolutionary bottlenecks that excluded much ancestral DNA - genetic drift I guess, amplified in each founder population. We are not all related genetically!It's important I think to realise that while we inherit half our DNA from each parent, and they inherit half their DNA from each of our grandparents, we do not therefore inherit a quarter of our DNA from each grandparent. Crossing over in meiosis can, in theory, result in us inheriting no DNA from one grandparent. What governs crossing over - could epigenetics have a role? It certainly isn't random but seems to occur at certain sites does it not.Another thing that bothers me is that sons often seem to inherit the father's characteristics and girls the mother's to an overwhelming extent. Just look at portraits of famous families on the walls of big houses! Imprinting is known to play a role in preventing overexpression of X chromosome genes in females, but might it not also play a more complex role in choosing genes for expression (and even for passing on in crossover)? It isn't just the media and the public who spread misunderstanding about genetics - Richard Dawkins is surely the major culprit when it comes to sticking to the concept of 'a gene for a feature', and I regard him as a scientist even if E O WIlson doesn't! And could you not have done more to put things right when you held the powerful role of editor of Nature?
Considering Richard Dawkins wrote "The Extended Phenotype", I would say he's the last person to stick to the concept "a gene for a feature". For him, it's the complex of genes and how they manifest, as a complex, in their phenotypical forms that drive reproductive success, which is quite opposite to the "a gene for a feature" view.
What really hurts me is people saying that Geordie's are just Scotsmen with their brains kicked out. That IS NOT TRUE. It was the Newcastle Brown which fried our brains.
@@kwanarchive I read 'The Extended Phenotype' back then and considered it one of his best books. Back then, it was thought that the human genome contained at least 100k genes and probably more, which made the idea of many genes acting together more feasible. Since 2001 we have known that we have only 21k or so genes, and I fail to see how they can act together in a useful way without confusing crosstalk - each gene is 'trying' to optimise for thousands of features. That idea, though mainstream, seems to me to be now dead, and it is the complexity of RNA products revealed to be transcribed by the ENCODE project that is now of interest. Dawkins books do not reflect this. If Dawkins does not believe in 'a gene for a feature', then what is it about a gene that it is being selected for. True, the concept of a 'gene' can be extended to mean more than just a protein coding sequence, but if it is extended to include elements more remote on a chromosome, then it can no longer be selected for as it is likely to be broken up in meiotic cross-over. I owe a lot to Dawkins writing initiative for getting me involved, as do many others, but I think he simply got it wrong.
@@jt2097 'Appen as maybe, but then we Yorkshiremen wouldn't know:-)
@@lindosland But that's the human genome. Plenty of other organisms have much more genes, and much more chromosomes, which shows there's plenty of room for natural experimentation. That the human genome is smaller than expected doesn't really mean much because we haven't discovered any bounds as to how genetic codes should be.
If you look at genes as "trying" to optimize for features, of course it seems wrong. The whole direction of modern genetic and evolutionary theory is to let go of the idea that genes are "for" something. Features come out of a gene complex. The ones that don't work together die - in their trillions. That's the point people keep forgetting. There's natural selection going on that makes things seem like magic but actually so much trial and error (by death) has happened to make it look that way.
So there is actually a lot of confusing crosstalk. Lots of things die. We just see the successful ones.
we need to know how it was calculated for humanity to have had '107 billion' over the whole time the earth has had vegetation and any kind of creature. Who can say how many humans could have existed between each of the many ice ages, and then before that when there may well have been ages of no ice eh. keep the mind open to ever advancing knowledge eh.
ker sim - agreed. Would you struggle against someone asserting we know almost nothing accurately about the Ice Ages? My interpretation of ice cores suggests the prevailing scientific theory about them is false.
@@danweaver4304 Yes, Science is the investigation of theory and their investigation is limited to - established knowledge and their ability ( for the want of tools/Tech.) to dig deep into the unknown. Today there seems to be a deliberate effort to shut out from Science and the Public any previously determined Scientific knowledge that might interfere with the (man made Co2 dictatorship) that it's the CAUSE of extreme weather events, earthquakes, tidal waves and glacier melt, when it is simply proven from historic records that it's all connected to the present Cycle of the Sun, as we head into a very cold/wet time as the Sun dives into it's Grand Solar Minimum eh.
ker sim - I agree with you. Solar cycles have been improperly evaluated. The earth’s climate system isn’t a linear regression, and therefore, almost every “trend line” showing steady long-term warming fails to show tiny increases in solar radiation as a major cause. The warming drives CO2 out of the ocean surface, which allows deep ocean CO2 to diffuse into surface waters, until equilibrium with the atmosphere is reestablished.
Satellites recorded a 0.1% increase in solar radiation at the top of earth’s atmosphere (TOA). That’s an average increase in the solar “constant” which exceeds +1.3W/sq.m. If you look at IPCC assessments, this statistic is missing, and only +1W is attributed to CO2 (without any evidence outside of computer models). But the computer models were created to show warming due to CO2! Shameful display of non-scientific confirmation bias.
@@danweaver4304 Yep.
It was ironic that you were speaking in Norway, as the Vikings, did not tolerate ginger hair, babies were killed at birth, and anyone found with ginger hair, on the travels, were just put to death : (
"That takes us up to the 1980s where we had really seriously begun to elucidate how biology works. How life works. We had established effectively three grand unifying theories of biology which all say the same thing...Physicists have been trying to come up with a grand unifying theory of everything for about three thousand years. And how are they getting on with that? Not that well. In biology we've managed to do it three times in the space of a hundred years. And the first is 'evolution by natural selection' by Darwin. Actually the first chronologically came a few years before that and its called cell theory...Cell theory very clearly states two things which are universally true. All life is made of cells, and cells only ever come from existing cells, with one exception, which is the origin of life...This is just a universal rule. And it's good to have universal rules because it means you can set up a framework from which you can conduct your next questions....And the third one universal genetics....So, we've got it. By the end of the 1970s we understood how all biology worked....Except it turned out to be much more complicated than anyone anticipated."
Yes, so fantastically complicated in fact that it is impossible that it came about by chance. It was designed, which means there is a designer. I know who He is. His signature is everywhere.
@@shoeshineboy5869 What is interesting is to see the scientific world fight at all costs against any notion of design. The biology, the replication system, the protein engines, the carrier systems in cells all indicate a design to execute a multi-stage process to reach an ultimate goal. Its like discovering an uncharted island and after exploring it discovering an automobile factory in the middle of it and then explaining how it naturally emerged and evolved.
@@danstinson7687 Yes sir. Good analogy. A $50,000 dollar education to become an idiot. Sad, so sad.
Besides the genome, there is also the proteome.
Proteomics is the study of an entire collection of proteins produced by one sell in an organism.
In other words, is the study of proteomes.
The primary purpose of is to understand the structure and function of a protein set
and it belongs to the molecular study field.
Q: That entire soup of proteines and how they interact is exactly how big a mystery?
A: Pretty big would be my guess.
Does Adam understand that what he was saying about how the family tree folds, we are all descended from a small group of people about 3,000 years ago, we are all related, and we are related to Neanderthals is actually very consistent with the biblical creation account and the Genesis flood?
Oh just shut up.
@@dreamdiction Oh, that's a thoughtful argument.
solomon's ladder?
I've got the "mis wevos" gene. 😂
Great that hé mentioned Rosalind, the real power behind the so called geniuses Watson and Crick
Great presentation and so inconvenient to some: No wonder that, so many "real experts" with "undeniable authority and absolute knowledge of truth" are trying to trash it.