👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 I’ve seen comments here suggesting that Dr. Noble questions or downplays the role of natural selection in evolution, and others saying his lectures are too complex for laypeople. Honestly, I think it's quite the opposite. I'm amazed by the wit, clarity, and straightforwardness of every one of Dr. Noble's talks. Congratulations on over 65 years of groundbreaking work! I look forward to receiving more of your lectures on RUclips or podcasts, as well as reading your papers and books. Thanks from Mexico City.👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Absolutely! When Denis Noble talks to "anyone, he talks to everyone!" His lectures are crystal clear to anyone with a cursory knowledge of Evolutionary Biology and so is his writing. His book, written with his Zoologist brother, "Understanding Living Systems" is an absolute gem! It could well go down in Biological History!
Thank you, Professor Nobel, for such a great talk. It's much appreciated by myself and many others. Thanks again, and don't stop now. Peace ✌️ 😎. We're just getting started.
I just want to say, I think there was always a strong temptation to model evolution as a tree. A directed, acyclic graph is, computationally, fairly easy to deal with. Its an easy data structure to think about. The problem is, that evolution is not a directed, acyclic graph, its much more messy than that. The actual structure of evolution is FAR computationally harder to deal with and to reason about. We've avoided this for a very long time, because it makes it more difficult and theres a sense in which biologists have been sticking their heads in the sand just to be able to have this nice, clean tree structure to reason with.
It's a very useful structure when working on the branches though. It's near the trunk with endosymbionts, high amounts of horizontal gene transfer, and even the potential for life to have arisen independently more than once where it breaks down. Another field biased around humans? Yeah lol. But I do think we should consider the merits of the tree when shifting to a new paradigm
The tree symbol should be upside down. Life evolution is and has always been convergent from the hybridization of multiple subspecies towards common descendants. Never from a common ancestor. There is not a single proof of the common ancestors theory. On the other hand, there are plenty of proofs of hybridization of multiple ancestors converging into a common descendants. We are one of the very many proofs of the common descendants. We are hybrids, the common descendants from Neanderthals, Denisovans, and an unknown number of other human subspecies. All kind of dogs, wolves, coyotes, and very many other subspecies of the Canis species easily interbreed, giving fertil offsprings because they all belong to the same species. We better look it up in the dictionary the meaning of the word SPECIES. The tree is upside down, or better said, we are the log, and all our great-great grandparents belonging to multiple subspecies are the roots of the tree.
An oversimplification to model recent history. Even for recent history, the gut biome, gene activation add to the needed complexity for modelling. Awareness, and intuition, is needed to model reality.
@@michaeledwards2251 the tree thinking we used to do has been questioned for decades now. most accept it is closer to an intertwined Bush rather than a tree, but adding procrariotes to the mix adds so much complexity it becomes a Bush with escherian roots.
@@dfghj241 Corals demonstrate symbiotic relationships, Bees and flowers are another example. The differences between Octopi and Vertebrates demonstrate neural sheaths, and bone, are developments of symbiotic structures. The reason for the development of vertebrate intelligence is genetic symbiosis.
Please read the book. I'm a layman of average intelligence but I read ( and re read sections of it) and found it well written and enlightening and enjoyable.
Thank you ! Blew my 20th century mind… it’s all well & good to look at these processes in detail, be enlightened… what boggles the mind is that cellular processes occur dynamically, continuously, with elegance & precision, exactly coordinated from birth to death! Marvelous mystery! Thanks again.
Hi Denis, I love your work and the way that you are able to make it easy to understand a complex subject. I searched for your books but they are only available as ebooks and not Audio Books. Please sir, would you put those books into Audio form ? I have ample opportunity to listen but very little time to read. I am a truck driver. I love to listen to your work.
There is only one other video on RUclips that I consider as important as this one, and that is the video on the exponential function, aka "the most important video you will ever see". Despite all its flaws, it is social media that has cut through all the noise and the idiocy to put these two gems in our hands.
I am a physist and I understood all your talk . They are some important things about live and DNA.The most important thing that we can’t produce the membrane of any egg and the DNA don’t code this membrane. Thank you professor.
I can see the multicellularity as a collaboration of cells. It enables remarkable capacities to grow large and do lots of things. It is analog to a single human capacity versus a whole country capacities.
Interestingly though, it only works when the cells of the germline effectively enslave the rest of the body by having a monopoly on reproduction. Otherwise you will always quickly get cell clusters that freeload or go parasitic. Bacteria form colonies and cooperate to a point, but they never properly coordinate.
Thanks professor for sharing your great thought laymen, like me. I am computer guy(not to claim scientist) who had difficulty with Hawkins's evolution by natural selection, or his emphasis thereof. In algorithm theory, there is an important concept: time complexity, that is, rough, how much time does take an algorithm to arrive at solution to a computational problem. Some of these problems are search problems in vast amount of alternatives. It turns out that those problem which can be computationally solved takes enormous amount of time, could be millions of years. As person with little training in genetics, I found the theory of evolution by natural selection difficult to accept, based on the analogy of algorithm and the DNA is basically a language or alphabet. The subject of symbiogenesis seems intriguing and promising.
In a fundamental way, this exchange of materials between cells, is a form of communication. We know for life, we need an energy source and we need to reproduce, and both those things are pretty enjoyable to me, as nature over billions of years has wanted it to be. And so also is communication, the communion with others and with nature, the capacity to exchange information. I wonder if, just as with eating and reproduction, the fundamental desire to communicate goes back billions of years to the exchanging of materials between life forms.
Prof. Denis Noble, I believe you deserve recognition for all of your work towards human understanding of life. Life - What a Gift :-} I am grateful for it, the little bit of it that I inhabit out of the entire Universe :-} Therefore: Thank You Denis - Sir - for sharing your extremely important Insights and Understandings. I truly enjoyed your podcast with Andréa Morris on Variable Minds. And now enjoying this Lecture as well. This is truly clear and understandable. {-: Exceptional :-} Peter A. Couture a.k.a. :-} PACratt {-:
An important subject- truly revolutionary, if only by its well investigated address of that which has occurred. The significance of this arena is both explanation of life but the true creative miracle of thought that thinks outside the box- RNA and the Environmental soup have lead to 'self organising' complexity through mitochondria - The mitochondria are well formed as carriers of possibility healing disease.
If you were going to seed a planet with life, Archaeobacteria seem like the perfect choice of organism. A single organism that can survive extreme conditions, multiply and then differentiate into other stages of development (more complex organism structure and function). I'm not saying we're the end product, but, here we are.
I feel like it was a non-sequitur to say that great energy increase needed symbiogenesis. It does not explain why a single species could not acheive it. It seems in the provided scheme that one species accounts for the great majority of energy metabolism and the other for construction. So two questions, in my attempt to fill the gap, then, are: 1) If other organelles were present before SBG, why cound not a mitochondion-like organelle be innovated? (I don't know what the current understanding is of the organelle-genesis timeline.) 2) Is the idea that to spend generations of finding an "in-house mitochondrion" forces lineages into adaptive valleys too low to survive?
@linusyootasteisking Correct. My suspicion is that organisms ingest others anyway. Once some of them have evolved efficient means of creating energy, they will get ingested. Then the full symbiogenetic process takes off. There are many unanswered questions still.
LUCA (a very primitive bacteria) had two simultaneous hurdles that needed to be overcome in order to scale up its size and metabolism: The first was a control problem, overcoming the maximum rate the single DNA could be transcribed into mRNA then transported to the ribosomes to be turned into proteins that then needed to be transported to where they were needed. The second was a cube/square limitation on ATP production, which was done at the cell membrane. The symbiotic event provided a way to address both of these problems. Since the mitochondria have their own DNA, now many DNA could be transcribed in parallel and you can get a lot more mRNA and protein made in a short amount of time and you have the benefit of having more local regulation of metabolism rather than having to transport/diffuse molecules back and forth to the host's central DNA. Some other bacteria and eukaryotes address this problem with polyploidy - making many copies of their DNA inside of a single cell. The other, and probably more fundamental, problem was the cube/square limitation of ATP production - as a spherical(ish) cell gets larger, its volume (and metabolic demands) scale as the cube of the size, but the outer membrane only scales as the square of the size. Eventually, you get to a point where further growth is impossible. Some bacteria get around this by only growing in one or two dimensions, forming long rods or flat shapes to maximize surface area. Again, the symbiosis event provided a mechanism that decoupled that limitation. Mitochondria can fill up the volume of the cell and, since they now live in a very protected and stable environment, they can optimize their own membranes for maximal surface area for ATP production. If that symbiotic event had never occurred, it's possible that life would have found some other route, but it isn't guaranteed. Maybe single-celled life and some mats and fuzzballs would have gone on for a few billion years until the Sun boiled the ocean and that would have been the story of life on Earth. My personal guess is that it was rising oxygen levels that made the symbiosis advantageous; each had half of the solution to operating in higher concentrations of oxygen and their symbiosis allowed them to grow to large sizes and occupy all the big-cell niches before other bacteria or archaea did.
It now seems obvious to me that from what we know the odds of the Universe evolving as it has are impossible to have occurred in any way randomly. The fact that energy is vibration and there is literally nothing vibrating. Planets only exist in a mind which can perceive them and only within this Universe because the only distinction between one thing and another is it's vibratory nature as perceived through another strictly vibratory system which has no physical structure whatsoever. So there must be an intuitive knowing of what strictly electronic signatures represent as symbols which are transformed into apparent structures according to species specific transformations of electrical energy.
Thank you :). Completely unrelated point: If intergenerational epigenetic changes are real at all, and are directed, they must have evolves into that configuration, even if the mechanisms are in equilibrium, they must effect selection of the dna, or they would nit habe evolved, lemark was sort of right ty.
I love these ideas but just a technical suggestion - i watch on a phone as many people I'm sure do. It would be so much clearer to have the slide as the larger on screen and Denis as the smaller as i can't follow the text. Would it be possible to record these differently in future? Thank you.
I get not being able to read it, but I find it easier to pay attention when he’s on screen as opposed to a slide with words. Separates him from some of the other channels out there as well that just look like zoom. RUclips lets you zoom in now, I use that!
This is a very clear and convincing presentation. I would expect that Richard Dawkins, listening to this presentation, would change his view. Has this happened?
I find this very interesting and relevant, because I'm currently running/simulating "chromosome crossover" in tiny Markov models/FSM agents, where each state is represented as a chromosome, which effectively works as a subroutine. Obviously, after crossover, the chromosomes/states have to align within the truth table of the new "organism", otherwise you get a new "species", in which state transitions from the parents become incoherent. I'm banking on the mutation-selection process to ensure alignment (due to failed fitness, any time the crossed-over states don't align).
Thank you though, for more explanation..it tells me how, ( possibly) but not where the info comes from,and why only here in this universe ( so far as ee know )
A truly timely and beautiful presentation. So thank you Professor may they rethink the "re-gender" agenda and realize how important the mothers egg is to genetic command via cell membranes and bio-plasma. It's time to drop chauvinism from science, not re-gender out the feminine influence over bio diversity.
RE membranes, is this why research into membranes and early organisms has become so important in recent years, as the earliest organisms consisted of membranes and little else?
What do plants do in place of a heart to create circulation? Can bacteria retain their previous adaptations when they adapt to knew antibiotics? Do they become more complex to do so?
Water evaporates from leaves, leading to suction from the roots. It’s not circulation though, unless you include clouds and rain in the system. Regarding bacteria I suppose they could retain previous adaptations and possibly lose them over a longer period, only to acquire them again when facing the same threat once again.
Institutionalism then, is both a blessing and a curse. Resistant to change but provides the protection to allow that change to occur. I see your multidisciplinary approach has yielded results!
Amazing. But only for (simple) biology. The most crucial evolutionary stage in development of every species occurred much earlier when particles were free to exchange energy and transform (i.e., stages subsequent to the grand unification era). One day, perhaps, we’ll see this in context with quantum gravity and how (as yet, unknown) messenger particles contribute to space chemistry needed for life to bloom as we are able to recognize,today.
You mention that exosomes might carry genetic material out of one cell into another in the same multicellular organism. Isn’t this essentially the organism producing its own internal ‘virus’ and doesn’t it suggest a possible origin for some viruses?
@20:13 Are the folded passages of Mitochondria similar to the Folded Waveguide passages of a Bose Wave Radio? If so, would that mean the Design of the Mitochondria is a Resonator that Vibrates, and thus produces Heat?
Membranes include various proteins so are to some extent controlled by DNA. It's the membrane proteins that do the heavy lifting for cell signalling, for instance, propagation of the neuronal action potential.
the current paradigm in evolutionary biology is quite clear: we assume there is no natural selection, that is the null hypothesis. natural selection must be demonstrated to exist in the subject of study, rather than assumed as a root driver of what is being observed.
Is it pos le to have software or IA that can recombine in an scomputer enviroment. That is to have say 10 pure algoritms o recombine and to do symbiogenesis and see if fitness of IA is posible. By recobination with ut Selection... Or Selection shall always be needed? I think you got got me Thinking
and a recent idea . using App inventor blocks to interact randomly driven by the ability to do work, consume energy from a battery source, generate some sort of recharge, and see if a viable algorithm is formed. Analogy blocks are amino acids of nucleotides, basic elements of life. need to have compartments for each random (each will be a file) experiment. also need to think of thermodynamic laws for life. for example battery analogs the sun energy source. any routine that consumes more energy than the one used to resort block gets a bonus (higher score) that will be a selection driver force
I suspect we continue with this theme in the afterlife with the gathering of "souls" (individual consciousness nodes which don't disappear after the death of the body) into a collective organization making a sum greater than the parts, same story. A hierarchy continuing all the way to the top into that thing we call God, yet it could not exist without us.
16:40 Such a wonderful explanation, id like to propose genetic information was exchanged using a variety of quantum properties and resulted in "new" life. New being a difficult term to claim because whos to say DNA ever began. It is the foundation which cannot be removed. A law of the universe. Expression.
Really love this video and the ideas that Denis is communicating overall. It’s great that we are getting different perspectives on the fundamental processes of biology. However, there is just one small issue I have toward the end of the video. He states “there are no genes for membranes”, which may be true. However, there are genes which code for enzymes responsible for the biosynthesis of the subunits of membranes (phospholipids) so that statement feels a bit misleading. Also, I feel like he is still totally misunderstanding the point that Dawkins made about “making another Denis” by hypothetically creating another human with Denis’ exact genetic code, even though Dawkins explained what he actually meant in that same debate. Again, not trying to say Denis is wrong, as he obviously has a lot more experience and expertise in this field than me. I just can’t help but feel that he often makes misleading (but not totally incorrect) statements, especially in recent years. Thanks for the video!
Undeniably revolutionary. The organisms at the cellular level exchange, merge with other cells to form super cell. The agglutination of multiple cells create all the living systems. Do we assume that each individual contribute different cellular organizations to create the diversity, despite holding the genetic features from his ancestors. Borrowing from the Financial Market, the mergers and acquisitions made the evolution to evolve rapidly. This could be the reason we retain some old antecedents. Is my assumption correct?
Excellent indeed. Very clear arguments and explanations. I certainly presumed DNA stored cell membrane construction info, but if it doesn't ongoing symbiosis is the only answer to cell reproduction.
Thank you very much for this paradigm-breaking lecture, professor Noble. We like to reduce the world to neat theories, but reality is always messier, more complex and beautiful.
I want Algae in my skin to protect me from Sun's UV and feed me through Photosynthesis at the same time. And fun fact: This has been tested on mammals and it was somewhat successful.
Just goes to say that a true scientists should never close the door for possible new fact and theories. Be humble and accept that today's truth might be proven wrong but nevertheless a stepping stone to new knowledge. Very interesting presentation and proves that Life finds it way (not some silly brain ghost called God)
@@Joe-sg9ll I thought the metaphor was obvious to any but the most obtuse. Using a false premise can only ever provide false solutions. We are only 200 years post Darwin, only a retard would think we actually know anything of value in that minuscule period of time and that it’s 99% sure our current theories are wrong.
Nice video. Thank you for sharing. Gets to basics or simpliest RNA and probable paths of construction and evolution. Also a different thing. A.I. and micro organisms with Y chromosome. Hyper evolution of the Y chromosome to one of it's meta stable states. Test to see the biochemical expressions. Paths of speciation. Mitochondrial manipulation and engineering and telomerase manipulation. Micro biome engineering to link into the mitochondrial manipulation and added expressions. Or bioengineering optogenetic and bioluminescent into an existing nerve bundle. Dermal layers and nerve grafting. A.I. and humans mapping the genrtics probability like google and fold it. 31:52 DNA is a probablistic blueprint. 32:57 Yes DNA has past viral damage. The trick is finding the junk DNA sections that are from past viruses and what might be lost functions even. Say one damaged part was for past vitamin production or lost function. 36:35 Your not just the product of your genetics, but also environmental feedback. Robert Kowalsky Stanford. Genetics and environmental feedback loops.
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 I’ve seen comments here suggesting that Dr. Noble questions or downplays the role of natural selection in evolution, and others saying his lectures are too complex for laypeople. Honestly, I think it's quite the opposite. I'm amazed by the wit, clarity, and straightforwardness of every one of Dr. Noble's talks.
Congratulations on over 65 years of groundbreaking work! I look forward to receiving more of your lectures on RUclips or podcasts, as well as reading your papers and books.
Thanks from Mexico City.👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Absolutely! When Denis Noble talks to "anyone, he talks to everyone!" His lectures are crystal clear to anyone with a cursory knowledge of Evolutionary Biology and so is his writing. His book, written with his Zoologist brother, "Understanding Living Systems" is an absolute gem! It could well go down in Biological History!
Long time I didn't see videos of high inteligent people like him, I need to do this more, it's so comfy and elegant to listen.
Thank you, Professor Nobel, for such a great talk. It's much appreciated by myself and many others. Thanks again, and don't stop now. Peace ✌️ 😎. We're just getting started.
Thank you for doing this very important work to help with the evolution of mankind. Your sacrifice & dedication to that purpose is so honorable.
Simply , elegantly, beautifully stated by Dr Noble
I just want to say, I think there was always a strong temptation to model evolution as a tree. A directed, acyclic graph is, computationally, fairly easy to deal with. Its an easy data structure to think about. The problem is, that evolution is not a directed, acyclic graph, its much more messy than that. The actual structure of evolution is FAR computationally harder to deal with and to reason about. We've avoided this for a very long time, because it makes it more difficult and theres a sense in which biologists have been sticking their heads in the sand just to be able to have this nice, clean tree structure to reason with.
It's a very useful structure when working on the branches though. It's near the trunk with endosymbionts, high amounts of horizontal gene transfer, and even the potential for life to have arisen independently more than once where it breaks down. Another field biased around humans? Yeah lol. But I do think we should consider the merits of the tree when shifting to a new paradigm
The tree symbol should be upside down.
Life evolution is and has always been convergent from the hybridization of multiple subspecies towards common descendants. Never from a common ancestor.
There is not a single proof of the common ancestors theory.
On the other hand, there are plenty of proofs of hybridization of multiple ancestors converging into a common descendants.
We are one of the very many proofs of the common descendants.
We are hybrids, the common descendants from Neanderthals, Denisovans, and an unknown number of other human subspecies.
All kind of dogs, wolves, coyotes, and very many other subspecies of the Canis species easily interbreed, giving fertil offsprings because they all belong to the same species.
We better look it up in the dictionary the meaning of the word SPECIES.
The tree is upside down, or better said, we are the log, and all our great-great grandparents belonging to multiple subspecies are the roots of the tree.
An oversimplification to model recent history. Even for recent history, the gut biome, gene activation add to the needed complexity for modelling.
Awareness, and intuition, is needed to model reality.
@@michaeledwards2251 the tree thinking we used to do has been questioned for decades now. most accept it is closer to an intertwined Bush rather than a tree, but adding procrariotes to the mix adds so much complexity it becomes a Bush with escherian roots.
@@dfghj241
Corals demonstrate symbiotic relationships, Bees and flowers are another example. The differences between Octopi and Vertebrates demonstrate neural sheaths, and bone, are developments of symbiotic structures. The reason for the development of vertebrate intelligence is genetic symbiosis.
Thank you, professor, for this very informative talk .
Fascinating talk, so much to process.
Simply thank you! Beautiful !
Epigenetics not mentioned in this talk but is is very important for both inheritance of certain traits and also for cell differentiation.
Your talk challenges so many ideas I have been taught and have read about evolution and indeed about biology per se. Thank you.
I feel happy to have heard this recorded talk
A great talk. Iwill have to read the books mentioned in the lecture.
Please read the book. I'm a layman of average intelligence but I read ( and re read sections of it) and found it well written and enlightening and enjoyable.
Every talk by this man is a great gift!
Thank you immensely, doctor Denis.
Many thanks for sharing so many fascinating ideas and developments.
Thank you ! Blew my 20th century mind… it’s all well & good to look at these processes in detail, be enlightened… what boggles the mind is that cellular processes occur dynamically, continuously, with elegance & precision, exactly coordinated from birth to death! Marvelous mystery! Thanks again.
Quite a conclusion there : the more we know, the more we misunderstand.
Thank You for the lecture - very enjoyable introduction to a modern biology.
Thank you for thinking for your self and providing the rest of us with something to think about.
Hi Denis, I love your work and the way that you are able to make it easy to understand a complex subject. I searched for your books but they are only available as ebooks and not Audio Books. Please sir, would you put those books into Audio form ? I have ample opportunity to listen but very little time to read. I am a truck driver. I love to listen to your work.
Amazing. Thank you and your brother SO MUCH. How beautiful an exciting !!!
wonderful presentation. thanks dennis!
There is only one other video on RUclips that I consider as important as this one, and that is the video on the exponential function, aka "the most important video you will ever see". Despite all its flaws, it is social media that has cut through all the noise and the idiocy to put these two gems in our hands.
Most enlightening video. Thank you so much.
I am a physist and I understood all your talk . They are some important things about live and DNA.The most important thing that we can’t produce the membrane of any egg and the DNA don’t code this membrane. Thank you professor.
These ideas are so revolutionary. They are mind blowing and exciting.
I can see the multicellularity as a collaboration of cells. It enables remarkable capacities to grow large and do lots of things. It is analog to a single human capacity versus a whole country capacities.
Where does the information come from in the first place ?
Interestingly though, it only works when the cells of the germline effectively enslave the rest of the body by having a monopoly on reproduction. Otherwise you will always quickly get cell clusters that freeload or go parasitic.
Bacteria form colonies and cooperate to a point, but they never properly coordinate.
Professor Nobel,
Thankyou for Putting Your Knowledge into the Public Arena.
I am Wondering a Few Things about what You Present.
SR. Denis Noble Awesome work.
Thank you. In France this research was ridiculed live on TV just a few weeks ago...
Hello Sir,
THANK YOU VERY MUCH 💐🤗
I was enjoying it so much, beautiful, GREAT.
my mom was also born in 1936. Awesome lecture Professor Denis Noble!!
Well said Dr. Noble! Thank you
I saw this 20+ years ago in my mind when I took mushrooms.
Thanks professor for sharing your great thought laymen, like me. I am computer guy(not to claim scientist) who had difficulty with Hawkins's evolution by natural selection, or his emphasis thereof. In algorithm theory, there is an important concept: time complexity, that is, rough, how much time does take an algorithm to arrive at solution to a computational problem. Some of these problems are search problems in vast amount of alternatives. It turns out that those problem which can be computationally solved takes enormous amount of time, could be millions of years.
As person with little training in genetics, I found the theory of evolution by natural selection difficult to accept, based on the analogy of algorithm and the DNA is basically a language or alphabet. The subject of symbiogenesis seems intriguing and promising.
Much obliged for this video
In a fundamental way, this exchange of materials between cells, is a form of communication. We know for life, we need an energy source and we need to reproduce, and both those things are pretty enjoyable to me, as nature over billions of years has wanted it to be. And so also is communication, the communion with others and with nature, the capacity to exchange information. I wonder if, just as with eating and reproduction, the fundamental desire to communicate goes back billions of years to the exchanging of materials between life forms.
How are membrane structures inherited from the mother's egg cell? Are protein channel position and configuration inherited?
Prof. Denis Noble, I believe you deserve recognition for all of your work towards human understanding of life. Life - What a Gift :-} I am grateful for it, the little bit of it that I inhabit out of the entire Universe :-}
Therefore:
Thank You Denis - Sir - for sharing your extremely important Insights and Understandings. I truly enjoyed your podcast with Andréa Morris on Variable Minds. And now enjoying this Lecture as well. This is truly clear and understandable. {-: Exceptional :-}
Peter A. Couture
a.k.a. :-} PACratt {-:
An important subject- truly revolutionary, if only by its well investigated address of that which has occurred.
The significance of this arena is both explanation of life but the true creative miracle of thought that thinks outside the box- RNA and the Environmental soup have lead to 'self organising' complexity through mitochondria - The mitochondria are well formed as carriers of possibility healing disease.
i really love, to hear more of your wisdom. Thank you sir, i can't wait for another video.
3 factors that are causing evolutionary changes and making evolutional selection possible: (1) mutations; (2) recombinations; and (3) symbiogenesis,
I've always enjoyed your prizes, Dr Noble :) This talk is not bad either....The Tangled Tree.
I always thought of this subject when looking at Siphonophores.
We love you and appreciate you. ❤
This is an excellent talk. Even I, a mere curious layman, can understand it.
If you were going to seed a planet with life, Archaeobacteria seem like the perfect choice of organism. A single organism that can survive extreme conditions, multiply and then differentiate into other stages of development (more complex organism structure and function). I'm not saying we're the end product, but, here we are.
I feel like it was a non-sequitur to say that great energy increase needed symbiogenesis. It does not explain why a single species could not acheive it. It seems in the provided scheme that one species accounts for the great majority of energy metabolism and the other for construction. So two questions, in my attempt to fill the gap, then, are:
1) If other organelles were present before SBG, why cound not a mitochondion-like organelle be innovated? (I don't know what the current understanding is of the organelle-genesis timeline.)
2) Is the idea that to spend generations of finding an "in-house mitochondrion" forces lineages into adaptive valleys too low to survive?
@linusyootasteisking Correct. My suspicion is that organisms ingest others anyway. Once some of them have evolved efficient means of creating energy, they will get ingested. Then the full symbiogenetic process takes off. There are many unanswered questions still.
LUCA (a very primitive bacteria) had two simultaneous hurdles that needed to be overcome in order to scale up its size and metabolism: The first was a control problem, overcoming the maximum rate the single DNA could be transcribed into mRNA then transported to the ribosomes to be turned into proteins that then needed to be transported to where they were needed. The second was a cube/square limitation on ATP production, which was done at the cell membrane. The symbiotic event provided a way to address both of these problems. Since the mitochondria have their own DNA, now many DNA could be transcribed in parallel and you can get a lot more mRNA and protein made in a short amount of time and you have the benefit of having more local regulation of metabolism rather than having to transport/diffuse molecules back and forth to the host's central DNA. Some other bacteria and eukaryotes address this problem with polyploidy - making many copies of their DNA inside of a single cell. The other, and probably more fundamental, problem was the cube/square limitation of ATP production - as a spherical(ish) cell gets larger, its volume (and metabolic demands) scale as the cube of the size, but the outer membrane only scales as the square of the size. Eventually, you get to a point where further growth is impossible. Some bacteria get around this by only growing in one or two dimensions, forming long rods or flat shapes to maximize surface area. Again, the symbiosis event provided a mechanism that decoupled that limitation. Mitochondria can fill up the volume of the cell and, since they now live in a very protected and stable environment, they can optimize their own membranes for maximal surface area for ATP production. If that symbiotic event had never occurred, it's possible that life would have found some other route, but it isn't guaranteed. Maybe single-celled life and some mats and fuzzballs would have gone on for a few billion years until the Sun boiled the ocean and that would have been the story of life on Earth. My personal guess is that it was rising oxygen levels that made the symbiosis advantageous; each had half of the solution to operating in higher concentrations of oxygen and their symbiosis allowed them to grow to large sizes and occupy all the big-cell niches before other bacteria or archaea did.
It now seems obvious to me that from what we know the odds of the Universe evolving as it has are impossible to have occurred in any way randomly. The fact that energy is vibration and there is literally nothing vibrating. Planets only exist in a mind which can perceive them and only within this Universe because the only distinction between one thing and another is it's vibratory nature as perceived through another strictly vibratory system which has no physical structure whatsoever. So there must be an intuitive knowing of what strictly electronic signatures represent as symbols which are transformed into apparent structures according to species specific transformations of electrical energy.
Thank you :). Completely unrelated point:
If intergenerational epigenetic changes are real at all, and are directed, they must have evolves into that configuration, even if the mechanisms are in equilibrium, they must effect selection of the dna, or they would nit habe evolved, lemark was sort of right ty.
I love these ideas but just a technical suggestion - i watch on a phone as many people I'm sure do. It would be so much clearer to have the slide as the larger on screen and Denis as the smaller as i can't follow the text. Would it be possible to record these differently in future? Thank you.
I get not being able to read it, but I find it easier to pay attention when he’s on screen as opposed to a slide with words. Separates him from some of the other channels out there as well that just look like zoom. RUclips lets you zoom in now, I use that!
This is a very clear and convincing presentation. I would expect that Richard Dawkins, listening to this presentation, would change his view. Has this happened?
This was superb!
Iranian Congress of Biology? Nice presentation.
I find this very interesting and relevant, because I'm currently running/simulating "chromosome crossover" in tiny Markov models/FSM agents, where each state is represented as a chromosome, which effectively works as a subroutine. Obviously, after crossover, the chromosomes/states have to align within the truth table of the new "organism", otherwise you get a new "species", in which state transitions from the parents become incoherent. I'm banking on the mutation-selection process to ensure alignment (due to failed fitness, any time the crossed-over states don't align).
Have you read "The Revolutionary Phenotype" by J-F Gariépy?
Thank you though, for more explanation..it tells me how, ( possibly) but not where the info comes from,and why only here in this universe ( so far as ee know )
So much with the Weismann barrier! Mister Noble, tear down this wall!
A truly timely and beautiful presentation. So thank you Professor may they rethink the "re-gender" agenda and realize how important the mothers egg is to genetic command via cell membranes and bio-plasma. It's time to drop chauvinism from science, not re-gender out the feminine influence over bio diversity.
RE membranes, is this why research into membranes and early organisms has become so important in recent years, as the earliest organisms consisted of membranes and little else?
What do plants do in place of a heart to create circulation?
Can bacteria retain their previous adaptations when they adapt to knew antibiotics? Do they become more complex to do so?
Water evaporates from leaves, leading to suction from the roots. It’s not circulation though, unless you include clouds and rain in the system.
Regarding bacteria I suppose they could retain previous adaptations and possibly lose them over a longer period, only to acquire them again when facing the same threat once again.
Institutionalism then, is both a blessing and a curse. Resistant to change but provides the protection to allow that change to occur. I see your multidisciplinary approach has yielded results!
Amazing. But only for (simple) biology. The most crucial evolutionary stage in development of every species occurred much earlier when particles were free to exchange energy and transform (i.e., stages subsequent to the grand unification era). One day, perhaps, we’ll see this in context with quantum gravity and how (as yet, unknown) messenger particles contribute to space chemistry needed for life to bloom as we are able to recognize,today.
Creative ingenuity!
Hello Prof.. Have you tried to fuse IKEA with cells in your lab and if so, what were your results?
Nice one buddy!💫
You mention that exosomes might carry genetic material out of one cell into another in the same multicellular organism. Isn’t this essentially the organism producing its own internal ‘virus’ and doesn’t it suggest a possible origin for some viruses?
What is the "self" in self-organising processes?
@20:13 Are the folded passages of Mitochondria similar to the Folded Waveguide passages of a Bose Wave Radio? If so, would that mean the Design of the Mitochondria is a Resonator that Vibrates, and thus produces Heat?
Surely symbyosis is a result of organisms evolving (via natural selection ) to a point where they can combine ....a type of staircasing 🤔
Membranes include various proteins so are to some extent controlled by DNA. It's the membrane proteins that do the heavy lifting for cell signalling, for instance, propagation of the neuronal action potential.
the current paradigm in evolutionary biology is quite clear: we assume there is no natural selection, that is the null hypothesis. natural selection must be demonstrated to exist in the subject of study, rather than assumed as a root driver of what is being observed.
Is it pos le to have software or IA that can recombine in an scomputer enviroment. That is to have say 10 pure algoritms o recombine and to do symbiogenesis and see if fitness of IA is posible. By recobination with ut Selection... Or Selection shall always be needed? I think you got got me Thinking
and a recent idea . using App inventor blocks to interact randomly driven by the ability to do work, consume energy from a battery source, generate some sort of recharge, and see if a viable algorithm is formed. Analogy blocks are amino acids of nucleotides, basic elements of life. need to have compartments for each random (each will be a file) experiment. also need to think of thermodynamic laws for life. for example battery analogs the sun energy source. any routine that consumes more energy than the one used to resort block gets a bonus (higher score) that will be a selection driver force
*this was really cool.. thank you..🆒💙.
I suspect we continue with this theme in the afterlife with the gathering of "souls" (individual consciousness nodes which don't disappear after the death of the body) into a collective organization making a sum greater than the parts, same story. A hierarchy continuing all the way to the top into that thing we call God, yet it could not exist without us.
Errh. No.
16:40 Such a wonderful explanation, id like to propose genetic information was exchanged using a variety of quantum properties and resulted in "new" life. New being a difficult term to claim because whos to say DNA ever began.
It is the foundation which cannot be removed. A law of the universe. Expression.
Thank you professonr, very appreciated! a lot!
is this related to Dr. Gariepy's Revolutionary Phenotype?
Really love this video and the ideas that Denis is communicating overall. It’s great that we are getting different perspectives on the fundamental processes of biology.
However, there is just one small issue I have toward the end of the video. He states “there are no genes for membranes”, which may be true. However, there are genes which code for enzymes responsible for the biosynthesis of the subunits of membranes (phospholipids) so that statement feels a bit misleading. Also, I feel like he is still totally misunderstanding the point that Dawkins made about “making another Denis” by hypothetically creating another human with Denis’ exact genetic code, even though Dawkins explained what he actually meant in that same debate.
Again, not trying to say Denis is wrong, as he obviously has a lot more experience and expertise in this field than me. I just can’t help but feel that he often makes misleading (but not totally incorrect) statements, especially in recent years.
Thanks for the video!
Undeniably revolutionary. The organisms at the cellular level exchange, merge with other cells to form super cell. The agglutination of multiple cells create all the living systems. Do we assume that each individual contribute different cellular organizations to create the diversity, despite holding the genetic features from his ancestors. Borrowing from the Financial Market, the mergers and acquisitions made the evolution to evolve rapidly. This could be the reason we retain some old antecedents. Is my assumption correct?
animals have mitochondria, whereas plants have both mitochondria and chloroplast
We Both have Significant Amounts of Water as Well.
Hydrogen and Oxygen.
Thank you for this video
Exactly the correct way to Good example
Im gonna give a shoutout to the transition from RNA to DNA
Ima give a shoutout to the transition from non-photosynthesizing life to photosynthesizing life
I wish he would have mentioned epigenetic changes.
Excellent indeed. Very clear arguments and explanations. I certainly presumed DNA stored cell membrane construction info, but if it doesn't ongoing symbiosis is the only answer to cell reproduction.
Thank you very much for this paradigm-breaking lecture, professor Noble. We like to reduce the world to neat theories, but reality is always messier, more complex and beautiful.
Apparently, the heart is not a pump, but it's still understandable.
One of things that I look forward to when I die is the cessation of hearing this tripe.
Thank you very much!
You are great 😊😊😊
Aren't membranes continuously produced by proteins coded in DNA?
All cells in the body have control routines, and that these control routines are inherited from our mother's egg cell.
Magnificent lesson.
I want Algae in my skin to protect me from Sun's UV and feed me through Photosynthesis at the
same time. And fun fact: This has been tested on mammals and it was somewhat successful.
Interesting indeed.
Just goes to say that a true scientists should never close the door for possible new fact and theories. Be humble and accept that today's truth might be proven wrong but nevertheless a stepping stone to new knowledge. Very interesting presentation and proves that Life finds it way (not some silly brain ghost called God)
We’ve dropped our gold wedding band in the lake and are busy tearing our hair out wondering why the magnet on the string can’t find it.
Bot? weird tactic. gold isn't magnetic. I can't help myself
@@Joe-sg9ll I thought the metaphor was obvious to any but the most obtuse. Using a false premise can only ever provide false solutions. We are only 200 years post Darwin, only a retard would think we actually know anything of value in that minuscule period of time and that it’s 99% sure our current theories are wrong.
Great talk but I dont understand why is he giving a presentation to Iran?? whats that all about
Greatest transition? I'll say!
Denis is spitting image of Michael Caine !!
Nice video. Thank you for sharing. Gets to basics or simpliest RNA and probable paths of construction and evolution. Also a different thing. A.I. and micro organisms with Y chromosome. Hyper evolution of the Y chromosome to one of it's meta stable states. Test to see the biochemical expressions. Paths of speciation. Mitochondrial manipulation and engineering and telomerase manipulation. Micro biome engineering to link into the mitochondrial manipulation and added expressions. Or bioengineering optogenetic and bioluminescent into an existing nerve bundle. Dermal layers and nerve grafting. A.I. and humans mapping the genrtics probability like google and fold it. 31:52 DNA is a probablistic blueprint. 32:57 Yes DNA has past viral damage. The trick is finding the junk DNA sections that are from past viruses and what might be lost functions even. Say one damaged part was for past vitamin production or lost function. 36:35 Your not just the product of your genetics, but also environmental feedback. Robert Kowalsky Stanford. Genetics and environmental feedback loops.