Why Dawkins is wrong | Denis Noble interview
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 24 เม.ย. 2024
- In this interview, esteemed biologist Denis Noble explains why our approach to biology is the wrong way around.
We thought that the sequencing of genetic information would unlock vast developments in medical cures for a whole host of illnesses. However, sequencing the genome alone hasn't revolutionised medicine. Denis Noble argues that we have our treatments the wrong way around. Instead, we need to recognise that genes are not on/off switches, and move beyond dualism in Biology.
Watch world-famous scientist Richard Dawkins go head-to-head with celebrated biologist Denis Noble as they debate the role of genes over the eons at iai.tv/video/the-gene-machine...
00:00 Introduction
00:26 Why does the idea of genetic determinism have such a lasting appeal?
06:13 What do you see as the fault of this gene-centric Neo-Darwinian picture?
11:22 How did Darwin's view get distorted by Neo-Darwinism?
14:18 What is the alternative to genetic determinism?
17:55 Can determinism come from the environment?
22:37 What do you make of CRISPR and human enhancement?
24:53 What is the biggest question in molecular biology at the moment?
Oxford Professor and one of the pioneers of Systems Biology, Noble developed the first viable mathematical model of the working heart in 1960.
#DenisNoble #GeneticDeterminism #NeoDarwinism
The Institute of Art and Ideas features videos and articles from cutting edge thinkers discussing the ideas that are shaping the world, from metaphysics to string theory, technology to democracy, aesthetics to genetics. Subscribe today! iai.tv/subscribe?Y...
For debates and talks: iai.tv
For articles: iai.tv/articles
For courses: iai.tv/iai-academy/courses
Watch world-famous scientist Richard Dawkins go head-to-head with celebrated biologist Denis Noble as they debate the role of genes over the eons at iai.tv/video/the-gene-machine?TH-cam&+comment&
Dawkins doesn't go "go head-to-head with" with this guy. What kind of superficial TH-cam channel this has become...
Wonderful interview! Thanks a lot. I appreciate the interviewer too, who leads the conversation so logically and very well, making even a layman like me appreciate what is being discussed.
I had tried reading Richard Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" years ago, but couldn't complete reading it, for I felt he placed the Gene on a pedestal. Almost made it an all-omniscient, new God hidden deep in every cell that knew its way through every challenge that evolution and nature threw at it. Denis Noble's interview brings out interesting, logical details that are far more appealing.
Ya, but he's old
@@welingkartr416 I've read all of Dawkins. The Selfish Gene was fantastic!
@@winifredherman4214 I know. Many people liked it-and like it to this date- and people recommended it, but somehow I found the idea of an apotheosized gene, problematic.
I am glad to see that there are so many comments. The clash of paradigms is important for the advance in science, as Thomas Kuhn wrote in his book on scientific revolutions. Denis Noble has put forward a contrasting and more holistic one to the currently prevailing and highly reductionistic molecular biology. In my opinion, you have to have a basic understanding of systems biology to fully grasp what Denis Noble says. He also gave a good advice to his former student to keep these ideas to himself. If, as a young scientist, you do not stick with the main paradigms of the time, you get no positive reviews and, as a consequence, no funding. Denis Noble now is in a position to do so and he merits all the attention and reflection that he can get.
My hypothesis is that the system of peer-review have this effect of reinforcing the status quo making more difficult to disruptive work to be published due to rejection of such ideas. Other problem may be that the way we avaliate the goodnes of a scientist is heavily skewed towards those who produce more pappers and have more citations. This makes difficult to new clever minds to be heard and appreciated.
However I don't have data to prove or chalenge my point.
In my opinion, you're both trying to sound more intelligent than you actually are.
@@mathiaschaves7604 Well, Lynn Margulis admitted submitting her famous endosymbiosis paper perisitently to more than ten jounals until a sympathetic editor accepted it for publication ....
It's actually quite sad that the "pressure to publish" system that has been created encourages over-skeptisism, cultish thought and gatekeeping preventing new thought.😢
Do not to clash your paradigms in frnt of me sonny, there are ladies present.
A joy to listen to this noble man. Thank you.
I like his openness. His open mind. Thats amazing. A scientist with open mind is rarei
Pun unintended?
I absolutely love having access to brilliant minds here on the cyberspace! Listening to Noble and other amazing minds is a real treat and a feast for a hungry mind. Thank you!
@@Jbat-xf5pv I am totally wrinkled! In fairness I wanted to write "on the internet" but changed my mind without changing the sentence structure. Thanks for your valuable contribution to the discussion!
What a treat to listen to Professor Noble!
One day you too will be a professor and we will say the same about you.
Very dialectical. This is the kind of talk we need more often. These reality checks.
I found it botnobaglasmic.
Go back to mismanaging your garden tankie
What reality does this check?
(dialectical would mean he intentionally presents two conflicting viewpoints, as a method to arrive at the truth.)
Dawkins is a true believer. Noble is a scientist.
How lovely it is simply to _listen_ to such old school Englishmen! One hardly ever hears English being spoken so beautifully these days. And his command of the queen of tongues is the perfect vehicle for his ideas. Truly noble, Mr. Noble.
never thought there would be english supremacists
@@yy3hh rule brittania
@@yy3hh you're just eaten up with envy.
Bet you voted for Brexit too 😂😂😂😂😂
I love listening to good spoken English too.
Roger Scruton, also one of my favs. His talks on the value of beauty are so needed in this modern world.
"Why Beauty Matters".
So important.
American actress Betty Davis was an outstanding speaker.
Just a couple of minutes into the video and already I'm having to look up words - and that's a good thing! 😊That's part of the value of these uploads. Thank you.
That was magnificent. Thank you so much.😊
You're welcome
The problem is that he is not describing the mechanism which allows the organism to be creative and not determined. How?
Because he is talking out his ass and the rubes are cheering
I worked with Professor Noble about 15 years ago as an intern on one of his video production projects. A really interesting man, someone who when he speaks, a room listens. Glad to see he's still going strong and well. If you're reading this (I highly doubt that you are) I hope you're well, and thank you for teaching me so much!
Great interviewer too. Congratulations even if we don’t know who you are. That’s how it’s done sir 🫡
Horrible interviewer with that sleepy too confident voice!
The original Dr WHO has graced us with an interview about the nature of the universe.
I can see the likeness. 👍🏼🌟
William Hartnell lives on!
I'm not even a Dr Who fan, and I saw how you got there immediately 😂
Kind of confusing for me... It's been a while, but as I recall Dawkins didn't claim that sequencing the human genome would solve all of our medical problems in his book, "The Selfish Gene." Dawkins' book is a "zoomed-out" general narrative about the complexity of genetic expression leading to speciation in the environment and, as Noble says himself, is probably the best book out there explaining NeoDarwinism.
It seems to me, what we are learning about epigenetic function and environmental impacts expand on Dawkins' thesis and doesn't necessarily contradict any claims he made there... Sure there are details that are off, but the book still works as an excellent and very accessible book on evolution.
Other than that, his claims are fairly reasonable (though, general), but I do feel Dawkins got "straw-manned" (I know for certain that Dawkins does not believe that our genetic make up solely determines our behavior).
I have to look up the debate/discussion between these two and, hopefully, I'll be able to understand Noble's objections more clearly.
Thanks
Darwin couldn't have an 'opinion' about genetics: It wasn't known in his era. So neo-darwin is a nonsensical term😊
@@Paul_C Yes, he wouldn't have used the word gene but he asserted there were mechanisms governing inherited traits. But I was referring to Dawkin's book, "The Selfish Gene."
I also am not a fan of the label "Neo-Darwinism," but went ahead and used it in this context as I didn't want to wade into that argument.
best to you.
Dawkins has said as humans we are not obliged to just act due to programming by our genes and can be better than that, as far as I recall. But his book was written before recent discoveries I epigenetics so it wouldn't be surprising if parts might be out of date.
Reading between the lines, I think Noble's critique of Dawkins is that his ideas are routed in determinism. I think if Dawkins were to have written the Selfish Gene now, it still would have been a deterministic text, just that the mechanisms would have been more complex taking into account heritable and non-heritable epigenetics (though obviously this is just my opinion). I think what Noble is saying is that the way in which biomolecular systems employ stochastic methods means that we cannot look at the human system in a deterministic way. It is my opinion that one day we will know enough about epigenetics and the insane myriad of RNA species to apply a more deterministic view of the human system, OR at least some of the subsystems. Though I do think Noble has a point about the chaotic fluid dynamics of very complex biomolecular processes may prevent us from ever applying a deterministic view to SOME (which is where I disagree with Nobel) biological subsystems.
I love this channel. It totally challenges me to review my assumptions without degrading logical thought or scientific methodology. THANK YOU.
How nice to see an interview without cutting to shots of the interviewer nodding sagely while the interviewee talks. Correct priorities here!
Wonderful conversation indeed👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
'Interesting...but Einstein wasn't trying to shock the world - he was trying to match observations to theory..& succeeded to a good extent. 'Creative in a very positive way. (Dot)
Same for Beethoven ! this idea of trying to shock is infantile.
Denis is one of those wonderful genuine intellectuals. I knew him 40 years ago at Balliol before his retirement.
I've never even heard of him but your assessment is exactly my thoughts after listening to him for just a couple of minutes.
@@Dodgerzden I never heard of Balliol.
@@willpeony5534 : Don't worry if you have not heard of Balliol. It's a small insignificant college of Oxford University which was founded in 1263 by John de Balliol of Bernard Castle, Durham and which has produced five Nobel Laureates. smh.
@@DanielJones-wj7mm Good answer , I had a girlfriend who had a Rhodes scholarship from America to Balliol.
Let me think….how can I make this about me?
Great interview, excellent choice of questions.
Absolutely amazing and illuminating interview! Really well informed and well put questions from the interviewer and obvious genius in the responses - 10/10
I don't find misrepresenting Dawkins amazing at all, let alone well informed or illuminating.
@@ConserpovI’m just slowly getting in this gentleman and Dawkins. What is particularly misrepresenting within this video?
@@BearGryllsSpoofs
Noble, apparently, didn't even read Dawkins' books past the title.
Noble straw-mans Dawkins and then just repeats Dawkins' own points as his "rebuttal".
"Dawkins rejects epigenetics", "Dawkins is a genetic determinist/reductionist" are just most ludicrous examples.
@@Conserpoviai likes to give a platform to pseudo intellectuals good at only serving word salad. It is easy to win accolades by being verbose.
"When the Facts Change, I Change My Mind. What Do You Do, Sir?". I don't know who said that first, but Dawkins has said it a lot.
The gene therapy cures may be in short supply, but we are now coming up with a lot of gene therapy treatments at least. If your disease didn't previously have a treatment then you'd still be very thankful.
All he is saying is that life is complicated and multi layered with redundancy and there is a lot about it we do not understand. Well yes. However, but we have to start somewhere.
He also makes specific neolamarckist claims.
You seem to be right aboot that...
But yeah, Scanlon might also have a point....
@@johnscanlon8467 I said: Scanlon may also have a point.......
Yes, exactly.
Excellent episode!!! Thank you.
I have so much respect for Denis Noble, this man’s rational logical reasoning and willingness to update and rethink his own conclusions , while respecting those of others, even if he believes they are wrong … Dawkins seems unwilling or unable to acknowledge many of his his theories have been debunked .
Such a pleasure to listen to this extremely informative conversation. Thank you.
Nobody cares. Why do you write these generic one liners ?
Very good discussion, still leaves the why anything and deeper thoughts on being able to percieve untouched.
The stochasticism explains the CHOOSING and the INTELLIGENT UTILIZATION of stochasticism for a functional purpose?? Nope. I think these guys are good scientists but poor philosophers. He’s trying to stay within his materialistic framework while undermining himself with his observations.
We just don’t know. It’s though not an intelligent being and more, not magical being created by insecure humans.
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻…a pleasure to hear this talk by Prof. Noble…
He really should frame his points with the briefest of introductions for those of us not aware of the tedious debates that form the background to this.
I don't think Dawkins has ever suggested behaviour is determined by genes alone.
Have you read the book. I have, he does according to my understanding of it. I see it as worse, humans are dismissed, its genes need to reproduce itself that matter, nothing else. And how he express it he give the genes an aim and that gives genes agency. That is having purpose, to reproduce itself. And to me that's falling into a form of modern animism. Its even in the title, The selfish gene, as if its a choice by genes to be altruistic or selfish and it chooses selfishness.
Noble might very well be a good physiologist, but his ideas about evolutionary biology are simply not grounded in facts. He has repeatedly made statements that were either just somewhat wrong or absurdly erroneous about it.
@@celorfiwyn8193 Yes, I do not know Noble and have just stepped by and found it interesting enough to stay a while. So my view is based on that and foremost my encounter with Dawkings text in the Seflish gene years ago. So all I can say is Dawkins just doesn't know what he is talking about when he goes so far in his extreme reductionism to postulate that humans are just another way for genes to make another step in their march towards the future in their attempt to survive. And on top of it give Genes agency. That is there was a choice to be made and selfishness was it, for the genes. Its plain stupid and I cannot now that years has passed by see anything but the rubbish I found in this more than 30 years back.
Not only that, the end of the Selfish Gene marvels at our ability to move beyond our genetic destiny.
@@ianmiell In the sense of manipulation you mean. Well, the whole thing with this is pretty dangerous to me, humans tinkering with is not really well understood yet, and many times for the narrow reason of profit, is just madness. Which we humans are very good at displaying too often for comfort.
I think he misrepresents what Dawkins says.
What he is saying is the genome isn't a code, I agree.
I don't think Dawkins claimed it was any more than a replicator that is selected for its ability to get replicated.
There is some genetic determinism, but it is not straightforward, absolute and environment plays apart. I don't think NeoDarwinism is genetic determinism.
I don't think anyone imagined medical solutions were going to come out of the sky from sequencing work.
I think "genetic determinism " is a strawman. I would love to know if Dawkins ever used the phrase.
I completely agree.
Q: “What do you see as the fault of this gene-Centric new-Darwinian picture?”
A: ~“it promised to cure disease but failed”.
Who promised that? Did Richard Dawkins?
There is an obvious paradox in having a gene that will kill the host for neo-Darwinians since it for that gene to propagate it needs the host to survive.
My understanding of the neo-Darwinian position is that there are many genes and they can have competing effects on behaviour, the extended genotype. Whether a behaviour is “advantageous” depends on the history of the organism and the context of the action.
Yeah. At the base, it’s all the same. Very complex in the end as it is with absolutely everything. The discoveries never end.
Yes, he is over-selling some new additions to scientific knowledge, as if they revolutionize the entire discipline. Never have I read any advocacy of strict genetic determinism from Dawkins, he is strawmanning him.
Genetics determines potentiality, enviroment determines actualization!
@Martin Williams and junk DNA determines nothing.
Also the environment includes the cell and its contents, which is partially determined by genes.
Thank you, Professor Noble
We as a species will always be continuously searching for the facts about our genetic mechanisms and history and hopefully continue to make general progress in regards to it. Preventing cancer, Alzheimer's, heart disease and all the most common forms of disease and mortality are and will be much closer in the next century. The amazing thing is that it all works and we don't have to understand completely how it works.
Wonderful man. We need to continue cultivating minds like his.
The title gives the wrong impression about Dawkins. Why?
Because it gets clicks.
@@grantm6514
"Clickbait" on TH-cam is ubiquitous!
The title is spot on - which part of the discussion didn´t you get?
Dawkins is wrong in every point of Darwinism. He don't understand clearly Darwin's theory.
@@riccardodececco4404
_> The title is spot on_
Can you name one thing that Dawkins actually said and is shown wrong in this video? You can't.
"i am a programmer..."
There may be no if-then-else at that level, 1) we're at the machine code or even the electron gate level (switches)
2) if dna is "just data" and the processing is done elsewhere , the description of the processor is still contained within *that same data*
DNA is definitely the compiled binary to use that analogy, but it's significantly more complex because each bit in binary is discreate and controls a switch, but each amino acid can influence a significant number of other things. It's orders of magnitude more complicated in that respect. I think we will reverse engineer it successfully at some point, but being able to see a program's binary is a long way from being able to work out what it actually does.
Where during this interview was the point of the title of this video brought up? I quite like the channel, please don't start making clickbait titles, you're above it. And no, Dawkins is not above criticism, but that's beside the point
I am not I biologist, but I have read Dawkins' books. I don't see a contradiction between genetic determinism and phenomema on a higher level like "the organism" or epigenetics. Dawkins goes even further in "The Extended Phenotype" as he describes the gene can have effects outside the organism. And in "The Blind Watchmaker" that genes even team up. I think Dawkins might regularly be misinterpreted by fellow scientists for various reasons...
Creativity as a physical process is mentioned here, but is important to make the distinction between creativity and free will. I have never seen free will expressed as a physical process without losing its classification as free will.
Free will could be an illusion 🎶
There is a parallel problem I think in cognitive neuro-psychology which claimed that we’d be able to isolate the key modules of the biological architecture of mind (eg. speech, visual, knowledge, inference centres). Eg. it was claimed that Broca’s aphasia & Wernicke’s aphasia comprised a double dissociation of conceptual knowledge and syntactic knowledge. So, according to pathological data we can add to a flow chart of our ex hypothesis biological mental structure (the two functionally discrete aphasias) two modules: conceptual and syntactic knowledge, both modules being mutually independent of one another (ie. doubly dissociated, the so-called criterion for structural identification). The problem here is that the only reason we have to believe this is acceptance of the modularity thesis (roughly, by assuming before the fact the modularity of mind: that the mind is essentially a sort of complex biologically based computer on von Neumann architecture). But the pathological data - the seeming double dissociation of conceptual from syntactic knowledge ‘modules’ - is presented as corroboration of the modularity thesis. Without it we have no reason to accept modularity. So we have simply assumed before the fact the hypothesis that we intended to demo after the fact. The problem has a certain Humean (David Hume) twist to it.
I also agree with David Noble and wonder if Richard Dawkins has push neo-Darwinism to an implausible from rationalism, the sought from which Dostoyevsky recoiled so vehemently in ‘Notes From The Underground’.
what joy.....how fascinating it is to listen to this very interesting man.
What an incredibly interesting and informative video! Denis Noble is indeed a genius! He managed to explain some of the most complicated things simply enough to give me at least a rudimentary understanding. Excellent questions from the interviewer too! 🙏
This "genius" is only a genius at misrepresenting Dawkins.
@@Conserpov How silly. The man has differing opinions. He isn’t representing or misrepresenting Dawkins. He’s representing himself and his ideas borne from many years studying in his field.
@@Ian.Does.Fitness
_> The man has differing opinions._
No, the man egregiously misrepresents another man's position.
The man is disingenuous.
Clearly, you neither read any of Dawkins' books nor listened to what Dawkins had to say, so you are in no position to judge.
Other than that Noble can represent himself all he wants - as someone who doesn't understand evolutionary biology, that is. But this is crossing another line.
Dawkins is a fool
@@Conserpov precisely
Very interesting and a intellectual conversation!
Fantastic Interview .
Really enjoyed it .
Very smart man ...
The best Doctor Who? EVER! I wonder how he'd deal with the Cybermen?
If only the BBC would go back to basics and base the character firmly on an extraordinarily intelligent man of science and culture such as this. He makes really good points that even dullards like me can understand.
Denis Noble is so sharp despite his age.
An interesting talk with a misleading and clickbaity title.
Are we our biology?
For 36 years I was happy to believe so.
You don't have to tell me that my physiology can easily dictate my behavior.
I can make other choices, though, when I know better.
I choose love, I choose God.
May science and philosophy be pursued and benefits received thereby, but...
The determinate factor, is the One who allows you to choose for yourself.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
I agree with him. Scholars must be able to see things as a whole, not complexity in detail, but as a whole: there is logic.
you can feel the aura of a true intellectual listening and seeing Prof Denis Noble, awesome!
True intellectuals don't use fallacies.
See talking to pattern recognition untangle and string just by predictability with the whole scientific community tell me 1 year in understanding how learn work as 1
Excellent talk! Informative on many levels.
Ah well, what can I say....
@16:05
Nobel is Wrong...
A person’s “mood” is highly dependent on the “physical” state of the body; ... which is “indirectly-dependent “ on one’s genes and Not on freewill...
Exp.. when one is hungry (body lacking sugar/energy) and/or one is stressed (body flooded with stress hormones);
...one tends to be much More in a bad /Non-Charitably Mood than when one is full/not-stressed/etc...
There are many examples where a person suffered brain damage;... and their mood; behavior; essence changed...!
Anyway; Nobel and Dawkins really differ in Nuances;...
... they both reject the “God-hypothesis”....!
@@oskarngo9138 I'm actually an expert in body/mind connection. There is an influence between body experiences and psychological views certainly, but especially in trained people, it is not an overwhelming influence. The same can be said in reverse; psychological states can strongly influence body states and even body capacities. Try doing five years of day to day Tai Chi Chuan and Meditation. I can't think of anything Noble said that would deny issues like brain damage. Neo-Darwinism and Behaviorism both have portions of their explanation of the world which later experiments proved to be highly questionable or simply wrong. As for God, as mentioned in the video, Pascal created a dualistic approach so that anything "spiritual" was left to the church and anything "physical" was left to science. This was taken as a matter of dogma, not as a scientifically studied hypothesis that is either proved or disproved. Part of that was Pascal's assertion that mind/consciousness does not affect matter. This is simply false as many examples have shown.
I just discovered Noble and I love him
There are different layers. The state of the art instrumentation should be the guide to what layer we should focus. By looking at a sample of transistors in a cpu, you may guess the computer is multiplying two numbers, but by looking at the assembler code, you know everything relevant.
This is SO refreshing, to hear good AND well formulated and grounded thoughts !
Thank you!
Wrong. It's full of logical fallacies and misrepresenting Dawkins.
@@Conserpov Uh? He's not trying to misrepresent Dorkins, he just knows that bit more about the subject under discussion. IMHO
@@user-rk4nx1dx1l
_> he just knows that bit more about the subject under discussion_
He does not know nearly enough about genetics and evolutionary biology to challenge Dawkins.
In fact, most real geneticists and evolutionary biologists routinely facepalm at his statements.
_> He's not trying to misrepresent_
Clearly, you didn't even read Dawkins' books, so your opinion on the matter has zero value.
@@Conserpov Facepalming is an entirely predictable left-brained trait.
@@Conserpov Care to provide some examples of said fallacies, and how is he misrepresenting Dawkins?
Denis Noble's account of the creativity of Beethoven seem be that magic happens. I would like an explanation from him why he cannot be a new 'Beethoven', if the creativity is not the function of biology and the environment.
As a musician he is probably aware of the close links between many of the major composers: between JS Bach and his sons (particularly CPE), Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Liszt, Mendelssohn and others we find threads of environmental connections. Beethoven in a different environment could not been Beethoven.
Yes bethoven wouldnt have had a brian without DNA coding it into place.
What is a "different environment" here? Some of these guys lived in different countries far away. I don't understand your question
Because he is a charlatan. I also get nonce vibes.
It's a nicely constructed piece of rhetoric, but what is your hypothesis?
@@andyzola it doesn't count if the young girl is a robot!!
I really love to hear these arguments.
Based on what I've seen and read, the controller wasn't hard wired into the system. It used Bluetooth. That's not ususlly the csse for safety reasons. That's not why they died, but it was an example of the costcutting and reckless design of the vessel.
This is very interesting. Dennis has a point. I fear I don't see how this 'clashes' with Dawkins point of vies (selfish genes).
As far as I can see both views are valid, worthwhile can can coexist.
The video doesn't even challenge Dawkins' actual point. According to Dawkins, it is the *gene* that is the fundamental unit of selfishness, not the person. The part about being selfish one day and altrustic the next doesn't apply.
In fact, Dawkins himself states that between two creatures possessing the same selfish gene, one may gracefully die for the other.
the point where both viewpoints clash is about the agency. Denis is removing the gene from the exclusive cause of agency and is open to investigating all possible agents, whereas Dawkins is a staunch defender of genetic determinism. It gets clearer in their debate. Denis here is pointing out the "new" discoveries from epigenetics that should be incorporated into the debate but are not. Lamarck's ghost has been haunting evolutionary biology again for a long time now, but extremist Darwinists like Dawkins refuse to admit that.
Denis' example of selfish or altruistic human behavior wasn't supposed to be related to the selfish gene at all. It was just an example of some of our numerous characteristics, all of which are not exclusively determined by genes, according to his point of view.
The title is click-baity.
_> Dennis has a point._
His only point is a rather crude strawman.
He clearly knows too little about genetics and evolutionary biology to challenge actual specialists like Dawkins.
Somehow Shakespeare’s works are written By Monkeys.......If you believe random dots will produce 6,000,000,000 genes and Trillions of living cells working in unison producing the pen and arm to write the sonnets down!? Still requires the “A Priori Miracle” !?
0:28. Biological determinism means behavioral control and prediction---that's and prediction. So we are not talking here about determinism as an explanation after the fact.
So he says control is within us, but not biological.?
How does an agent select among stochastic alternatives? The process is deterministic or stochastic there is no ‘choice’.
Wonderful point of view. Thanks for sharing this excellent content.
I think there is great merit in both the top down (phenotype down) and bottom up (genome up) approaches. I slightly disagree that the bottom up approach has "failed", though I do concede that the top down approach will probably yield therapeutics much more quickly at the moment. I believe it is crucial for both methods to be employed as we will learn much more about the space between, the epigenetics, from attacking the problem in both directions. The major failure of the bottom up approach was one of hubris, to predict with such fanfare that they would "solve" all problems and diseases within decades. Only to realise of course that the mammalian and particularly the human system is so much more complex than anyone expected. As for the philosophical point, I believe by carrying out both approaches, we will find areas where things are much more deterministic Vs stochastic, and other areas where things are more stochastic. As certain sub-systems will be more complex than others.
There is no "top down" at all. There is no amino acids that accumulate and then get written into RNA and then DNA. That's just not how evolution works.
>to predict with such fanfare that they would "solve" all problems and diseases within decades
I have no clue what you're talking about, but The Selfish Gene doesn't include any such predictions.
>is so much more complex than anyone expected
No. Everything that remains of an organism is the gamete. That's why taking the replicator's perspective is the only thing that makes sense of evolution.
Very interesting and insightful. I just don't think Dawkins would contradict that much.
Dawkins is not even a biologist. He has a DPhil and DSc. Those are not biology degrees.
@@kalijasin He got his PhD in zoology and his DSc is a doctorate in science which goes beyond a PhD.
What is your concern? That he ridicules - and rightly so - muslims (even deaf ones), christians and all the other spreaders of memes of delusions?
Noble’s point about using chance to create novelty, particularly at 19:55 reminds me of what Keats calls ‘Negative Capability’.
This was a much more technical, as opposed to philosophical, investigation than I expected. I like the acknowledgement about the probabilistic nature of human physiology due to our liquid medium. Chemical processes which are enacted in very small spaces, such as the mitochondria, approach designed determinism more closely than those which must act over greater distances. So in place of logic, we have probabilistic feedback loops, which function fairly well in aggregate but are quite hit or miss on smaller scales.
How incredibly Educated is this person. Certainly, not just a Scientist -and nothing against being a Scientist by the way which is a great thing, but we are never 'only this or that'. Thanks for the people on *iai* for this jewel interview.
Agreed and for me, this and other similar discussions highlight how far the tenets of a liberal and wide education emphasizing logic and rationalization has diminished.
It's amusing to call a scientist "educated"!
@@instamdgram Ironically! It is important that scientists as well as non-scientists, become more aware of the challenges (but also of the usefulness) of a broader education.
@@erdwaenor where is the irony in that? To simplify, you cannot be a scientist unless you're educated. I guess you're talking on a different wavelength or I'm (gladly) "uneducated" to understand the relevance of broader education in "this" context.
15:42 I think he's invoking a false dichotomy (when he postulates that either genes determine behaviour, or if not, free will must do so). It seems plausible that genetics and epigenetics predispose a particular individual towards certain behavioural practices, but that nurture and free will also play vital roles.
Precisely. Nothing is black and white when it comes to biochemistry.
What an interview! Fascinating.
Interesting, I need to learn more about this.
A lot of valuable insights being poured out by Prof Denis Noble indeed!
Excellent explanation! I would have thoroughly enjoyed taking your course at university! Too many physiologist’s and biologist’s lectures focus primarily on mechanisms instead of the process of interactions between the systems. Gratitude!
agreed ./thats why he is also a musician.
Denis seems to be wanting to say that we have some kind of will and can choose the outcome of our stochastic processes, yet I don't see how that can be. If the inner processes are stochastic, and so are the external ones where does the will come in? Are we to say our will is ultimately random? How would we call that will?
Excellent discussion. Thank you.
The lack of effective treatments does not refute genetic determinism. The more parsimonious conclusion is that genetic determinism is simply more complex than predicted.
And your evidence for that is what?
@@daveblack2602 Reality.
@@daveblack2602 Evidence isn't required he was forced to make this comment by causality
It is the 2-way interaction of genes with the environment during the course of development that determines the outcome of said development
@@brechtkuppens Why are we talking about it as if genes and environment are separate.
Unless you're proposing a spiritual element everything is just dumb matter even genes which are made up smaller things that are just matter.
שיחה מעולה. תודה רבה.
I would classify what he calls creativity as a category of the mind, it's descriptive of a determinate set of behaviors within a determinate set of possibilities. I feel like he gives it a transcendental quality that it doesn't have.
For me the determinacy comes from the field of possibilities that structures reality. Within this field, things are contingent based on the faculties of organisms and the particular stimuli organisms happen to come in contact with.
To fully understand an organism you would need it's entire history, rather than just an analysis of the parts contained within it (in this regard I find Hegel's metaphysics helpful).
Very interesting, complicated and thought provoking. I'm of for a long think.👍
I love when an person who is knowledgeable in science also has a scholarly and big picture understanding of their field. Sometimes I find in the biology and medical field it is very much on the micro-level. It is not so visionary. Denis Noble brings history into the picture, and whole texts from authors and relates it back to physiology, evolution, and from that topic to healthcare. In other cases the endocrinologist will stick to that field, the microbiologist to microbiology, the geneticist to genetics, the epigeneticist to epigenetics, the neuroscientist to neuroscience, the general doctor to general medicine. He does not do that however. He has the intellectual holistic view or all the micro-disciplines.
"I love IT when .... ". You can't say "I love when" unless you are meaning to say you love the actual time in and of itself.
@@G.A.M.E. Er ... youtube corrects your grammar as you type. Are they nerds too? Or is it OK if they do it because they're the establishment but not OK for anyone else?
You're a native English speaker, so speak English. You can't say in English: "I love when ....". You must say: "I love it when ...."
So pull your head in, humble yourself, and stand corrected. The language is being butchered enough without adding your pithy little American changes designed to get everyone to copy you.
You really want to know they "seemed fixed on the micro level"? It's because biology, in it's entirity is unBELIVABLY COMPLEX AND THERE IS NOT NEARLY ENOUGH STUDENTS GOING INTO THE FIELD.
Loved it!
I thought this may be some sort of click bait thing. He actually was bringing up some great points! I really like this channel. I wish rational debate and discussion was more popular on the wider internet!
I'm confused. Isn't epigenetics well established science? Don't all the questions discussed automatically follow?
Epigenetics is established science. Maybe it is not discussed so much, as it does not fit seamlessly into the Neo-Darwinian model. What is happening with Neo-Darwinism is exactly what has happened with outdated scientific explanations in the past. When a theory becomes bigger than its parts, a paradigm shift is around the corner. But it requires a new generation of scientists or maybe even several new generations to happen.
Seems like the interviewer is trying to create more controversy than illumination on the subject.
So well explained, so clear, so insightful. Brilliant.
Genes give the organism the potential for certain behaviours. Behaviours are then driven by the environment. What we don't understand is the execution engine that interprets the genes to derive those behaviours. The genes themselves partially code that execution engine, but a lot of it is just in the interplay of proteins and chemicals at a molecular, atomic, sub-atomic, and quantum level (which gives the truly stochastic mechanism). Sometimes external forces, like a minor viral infection, can recode that engine too.
Appreciating limitation of our research and putting a different workmodel .
Very interesting. I did notice the speaker say in regards to spirit and mechanism that he could not conceive it therefore it doesn't make sense. He also utilized the musical score analogy which I think seems logical, however he is a musician. The thinker seems to find it hard to separate himself from his thoughts
Don't we all?
As someone with a strong intellectual curiosity but with a very limited amount of knowledge of biological science, I found Denis Noble’s ideas and explanations both understandable and acceptable. I don’t say that in judgement of him, I say that as a complement to how he is capable of making very advanced scientific notions available to a common mind, such as mine.
18:20 - Ok, I have an issue with the idea that creativity is just the selection of desirable outcomes from the random outcomes that emerge naturally. Let's say that this is correct momentarily. So to get to creative result Z, you begin with first random results A, B, C, D. You could draw a tree all the way through to Z. But how did the organism know, at the outset, which of the first results would ultimately lead to Z? You're talking about a wildly complex and involved chain of connected events, and in order to make the correct early choices the organism would have to be able to predict all of that. It would have to somehow know to nurture result C and quash results A, B, and D. I just don't see an effective way to make that work.
"Reductionism has failed." Thank you 🙏
He seems to be talking about dynamic complex systems, myriad feedback loops between all levels of physiology, the genome, molecules, with resultant unpredictable outcomes. A form of intelligence. Would love this man to converse with the likes of John Vervaeke, Michael Levin, Stephen Wolfram, Ian McGilChrist...etc.
Basically, all the things that future pharmaceuticals will bypass and ignore. The result will be catastrophic, of course!
I was shocked at the incongruity of your list of names until I realized that in addition to Michael Levin the philosopher (with racist inclinations) there is also Michael Levin the biologist, who seems like an all-around brilliant guy, on first inspection.
Hi Campbell. Various pharmaceutical companies (and of course pharmacy & biology departments at universities) have been working very hard to incorporate notions of complex biological pathways and systems biology into their drug discovery and evaluation processes for decades now. This stuff got underway at companies and universities in the last century. In some areas, the companies led the way. [It's time to catch up. Cheers.]
Well that's completely untrue.
Genes get translated to RNA and then to proteins. Not the other way around.
You're blabbering about "myriad feedback loops" and that gets you exactly nowhere.
Genes are what actually lasts from generation to generation and that's why their perspective explains evolution and not the perspective of proteins.
@@SystemsMedicine They just caught the most influential university in the world embellishing their research to support their data. I rest my case.
what a bad title to a good interview!
where does dawkins say there is a program in the genome?
The truth is, we will never know the real answer. Which is why the question will be asked till whenever time ends.
One sided click bait?
The evolution in cancer treatment based on genomics is phenomenal.
Simply stop eating carbs
@@christopherellis2663 literally carbs?
Literally phenomenal?
What was the evolution? In simple terms I could understand
@@christopherellis2663 FALSE! Im a researcher and this is a myth at best. Stop eating simple sugars, and low complexity carbs sure. There are a multitude of amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, that are vastly more cancer promoting than carbohydrates. This type of low knowledge statement will almost certainly cause death in those with cancer. Depending on the cancer the following are a list of potential amino acids that can be targeted for limiting or entirely blocking during treatment - arginine, glutamine, glycine, serine, leucine, asparagine, and methionine. These are important to sustaining life, so its not advisable to limit these in your diet or body if you are healthy.
I love this man!
Great interview and wonderful explanations. Instead of "selfish gene", it should be "selfish proteins, including the enzymes and the systems they are working in." I made this point to Dawkins at a book signing after his talk on one of his books (which are all wonderful, BTW).. he just looked at my face, said nothing. I am so glad to have listened to Denis Noble. We use directed evolution to select peptides (tiny proteins) for a specific function within a given environment. It works like a charm.. not many people are doing it.. I don't know why (ignorance, lazy, sticking to one's path, etc.). As Denis Noble says, organisms are doing it all the time.. and we humans do it all the time.
Dawkins probably thought... "This chap doesn't understand that those enzymes/proteins/peptides come from genes! How will he be able to read this book ?"
And he wouldn't be too far wrong. Denis Noble points out, implicitly I believe, that there is a trinity of components (pun not intended), the environment, the protiens/enzymes/plasmids/peptides/etc and the genes, which stochastically respond to each other in a nondeterministic way (overall!, but as best as possible, this is where he infers the process is "creative").
So the answer that the proteins/enzymes/etc are selfish seems silly. The peptides/enzymes etc are simply the huge communicating mechanisms between the gene and the organizm. And this allows for the profound comment that this disposes of the need to believe in dualism. The body/cells/genes and the person/soul/physiology are each "selfishly" bound by the proteins, plasmids etc.
What I think will be the next revelation after Dr. Noble's ideas are mainstream, is that the earth's biome, viruses, bacteria etc play an important role in manipulating, "communicating" and evolving our genes and our physiology !!
Voilà un homme qui en plus de son énorme connaissance ajoute une sagesse et un recul sur la vie qui devrait inspiré beaucoup de jeunes étudiants
Bien. Jrb. 🇬🇧
Noble, speaking about Descartes' ideas, said, "there must be a spiritual entity that interacts with the mechanics, this was Cartesian dualism..." Then expressing his own idea he said, "we don't need dualism, the agency of organisms comes from within us..." Now, it is certainly fine to have your own ideas. But he is doing what scientists do so often, they present an idea as though it is a scientific truth, but they do not back their idea with evidence. Whatever you might believe about "spiritual entities" and "agency of organisms," if you have not proven it with scientific evidence, then it is an personal opinion and it should be labeled as such.
There seem to be questions natural science is not able to answer by its very definition. And therefore the answer that everybody is his own agent sounds trivial or as old as humankind.
Scientism is the claim that the only form of knowledge derives from the scientific method producing “evidence.”
Noble only mentions spiritual entities as a way of framing the absurdity of Cartesian formality applied to living systems. His sounds more like a dynamical systems theory approach to complexity and intelligence, in which the resultant agency of the organism derives from simple but myriad reciprocal loops. In other words, a complex but constrained system. Stephen Wolfram is developing computational models around such systems. Cartesian models often portray the universe as deterministic, obeying fixed laws of physics. On the other hand, Wolfram's theories suggest that the universe operates more like a computer, following a set of simple rules that compute the next state of the universe from the current state. This approach embraces the notion of computational irreducibility, where the only way to know the outcome of a system is to perform the computation (or let the system evolve). There's no shortcut as we often find in deterministic equations.
You might also explore the work of the biologist, Michael Levin. Levin's research into morphogenesis is similarly concerned with how complex biological structures emerge from cellular interactions. Both might be seen as studying different kinds of "automata"-Wolfram more in a computational or mathematical sense, and Levin in a biological one.
Right on. Thanks for sharing.