Listen on Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/4gL14b92xAErofYQA7bU4e Timestamps: 00:00 - Intro 02:05 - Overview of Lecture 04:30 - What is the Genome? 07:22 - Is the Genome the Book of Life? 12:16 - 20th Century Gene-Centric Biology is Wrong 18:03 - Neo-Darwinism is Incorrect 19:42 - Implications for Medical Science 27:17 - Next Steps for Biology 33:10 - A Challenge to the World's Scientists 37:10 - Outro / Support TOE
I will say with the research work of Michael Levin I think it's pretty apparent that jeans are not the important part it's not the DNA it's the RNA the electrical differentiation patterns in the calcium grow complex biological structures... basically standing wave functions of electrical differentiation promote the growth of complex biological structures as observed by the research work of Michael Levin
14:52 this is why i can connect so well with women i have finished inside of... No wonder why women start acting like the man they are with... sharing the same Source energy.
i think this kinda falls apart when you can compare the cellular structure between any human alive and discover that everything in the cell SEPERATE from the dna is in fact identical from human to human. and in fact these cell structures are the same going back 250 million years. so its much more relevant to call the cell structures "tools" and the dna is a Recipe, but the process of how to USE the tools is infact EMERGENT. it is not coded in either one (cell or dna). The tool is like a hammer that swings at nails because it isnt capable of doing anything else, not because the nail told it to swing, and not because the tool selectively chooses nails over some other option, but through pure emergence, there IS no other option so the hammer swings because it exists and for no other reason, and the output is only in existence today because the right circumstances (mostly luck) have kept it around
I love how Noble respects Sheldrake ! Sheldrake came to the conclusions that genes could not dictate form and his answer was fields . Noble here is speaking on the complexity of cells and how they themselves seem to through super super nano wisps of tubes dictate to the DNA and that changes in one human life can get factored in to give information to the next generation . So much food for thought and do much knowledge behind it ❤
He is correct except he does not know how and why tubules cause the effect or cognition whose answer lies in the deeper cause of consciousness which is my scientific discovery.Time has come for me meet Professor Nobel in Oxford
@dr.mukeshc.chauhanconsciou3144 morphic resonance is a strong theory. Clearly consciousness is not the result of brain chemistry alone. The University of Alaska apparently proved ESP a decade ago, yet it hasn't had the impact it should.
@@gazmasonik2411 I agree, absolute truth is completely covered up on Earth. The sheer beauty of design of consciousness and the knowledge of field is the finest knowledge missing or very little is known in science, sadly, religions have overpowered the absolute truth with their lies which are powerful and said with such conviction that people believe lies as truth. George Orwell and Huxley were right and way ahead of their times in pointing this out. I have made scientific discoveries of Creator of our Universe - and that is completely covered up and opposed on social media and scientific platforms....
@@gazmasonik2411 Answer is learn to connect with Infinity or Singularity, nothing is hidden from it ...that is the ultimate Creator of human beings and every cell whose entire mystery I have decoded in my 30 yrs epic journey and solving the Mystery of Origin of Life-MC Theory of Everything...
The DNA is nothing but a database management system storing and securing the genes. I would presume that the operating system and apps controlling this DBMS are far more sophisticated and intelligent than we've ever imagined.
@SUMOFAT4994 40 YEARS AGO, everything was described in wiring diagrams, electrical circuits, etc. Before electricity, everyone used metaphors based on roads, rivers, Etc. Next? Space travel lingo?
@@davemakk195 Let's not forget all the ideas described as stress and pressure during the rise of the steam engine. I don't know if the latest engineering feats dictate our way of thinking fundamentally or simply the language we choose to describe things in a comprehensive manner to the contemporary folk.
@@marethyu31 it's the Paradigm thing. Nothing WRONG with it. Just something we should be aware of. I'm just thinking soon, they will be talking about how someone's blood pressure got sucked thru a low gravity wormhole, and the left Hemisphere of one's brain actually is suspended in a virtual static field between 2 Parallel Universes. 🤔😳😈
When the student is ready then the teacher will arrive. I am truly inspired Sir .awesome content and conversation. Definitely turning in and subscribed.
don't confuse survivor bias here ... yes most people who revolutionize science have been ones who "think differently" but the great majority of those who "think differently" ended up being wrong and not actually revolutionizing much.
There is thinking differently, and thinking completely wrong. The original human genome sequence project estimated 20% of the total gene count of 31,778 genes to code for membrane proteins
@@LM-gg5zh Yes, but progress still relies on people who think differently, even if we don't know which ones will be right, and which ones will be crackpots. There are also a lot that are somewhere in the middle: they are completely wrong, but their way of thinking was still a necessary step on the bridge to the more insightful (and more correct) way of thinking; or they noticed something essential that no one else did, yet drew the wrong conclusions--but were still needed for progress to happen.
Great presentation by Denis Noble. I studied Computer Science in the 80s and after learning about the Church-Turing thesis (1950) realised that the genome could not possibly be a code of life. IF-THEN-ELSE aside, it turns out that very few things are ‘computable’.
So you base your conclusion(s) on a 75 year old idea... Do you know how much have been revealed about molecular biology of the cell since? It's like you judge today's physics based on Descartes ideas
What do you think you know about "life" that you (as a computers scientist) are so sure that genetic material is not sufficient to encode it's processes? What is (biological) life in your view? I've emphasized biology because there are some scientific speculations about what could be life in general but let's leave those aside
Genome represent only 'traits,' not like 'life-making properties,' or we'd have found it by now... Turing-Forever ! 😂 (Another one who was around Major 'compu-teurs' in the '80's... We were BIG HEADS... :)😂 [ck it out: Adair speaking about 1980... sad we missed out: ruclips.net/video/Yxpgwab_Qig/видео.htmlsi=uK3JPoE9Aw2nHjU8
@@lotusalivelight24 what is your definition/description of life? if you are sure that those "traits" (really every feature of the life of a cell I can think of) do not add up to that what you call life...
I often listen to these podcasts in awe at the intellect of the subject, as well as Curt's ability to ask intelligent, pointed questions of a subject in which he is not an expert. It makes me ponder my own limited knowledge of most things, and I almost always come away smarter than I started out (I think).
Denis Noble is a refreshing antidote to all the scowling, pedantic Fundamentalists that Academia is so fond of creating. Seems there's a few in the comment section.
I'm guessing that your education in biology is limited to high school and you've never actually encountered any 'scowling, pedantic, fundamentalists' in academia since you are not in academia. Am I right?
A new/old FAVORITE Curt. Thank you for the sharing of your knowledge Dr. Noble. Curt, great job finding the Elders we need in our lives…you have gift.🤙🏼✌🏼😊
I love Dr. Noble’s work which can only help but open the aperture on more entrenched paradigms…..much like Michael Levin’s. This is likely a stupid and irrelevant question, but I wondered what Dr. Noble would think about why Dolly, etal., the cloned sheep lived such shortened life’s spans? Might this have something to do with the important something from the mother’s egg he was speaking of…or in general, his speculations on what might not be able to be carried forward or lost via cloning. Much thanks to you Curt and Dr. Noble.
This is so interesting. If the membranes really AREN'T encoded in genomes, then DNA is only half the picture. The computer equivalent would be like trying to study the memory cache without the instruction cache.
@@Maouww there are genes that synthesise membranes. He makes a crazy claim and doesn't expand on where they must come from. We eat lipids and phosphate and we have genes that assemble them into membranes.
Not trying to contradict your brilliant analogy but it's like trying to know everything about and in the computer but ignoring its builder and programmer.
Did anyone in the comments section learn anything about genetics? The original human genome sequence project estimated 20% of the total gene count of 31,778 genes to code for membrane proteins
I would find it extremely helpful if the first question for every guest is, "Do you believe consciousness is the foundation of nature, the cause from which all effects emerge?". I might be missing something but it seems to me our genes are very much like our book of life which is written in every moment based on what's happening now. I feel like many of us have been able to theorize from what we see in nature today that evolution has to be determined by our present experience in nature as our environment. Things like seeing sea turtles running as fast as they can to get in the ocean as soon as they are hatched is but one example that new life often begins with an awareness of it's environment I'm going make a separate comment about how this video is further evidence to me personally that we are of one being experiencing many stories within a single story we call the Universe where energy is the substance of words in the micro and amino acids in the macro as letters which allow for our biology which comes from the Greek Bios meaning mode of life and logos meaning word.
It would be fine to see more nuance in the professor's talk. Membrane lipids are synthesized by proteins, packed into vesicle coats by protein-protein interactions and those vesicles are delivered to the cell membrane by protein motors. All those proteins are coded for by genes. Changes in those genes would translate into a particular phenotype of the cell membrane. So idk about all that "genes do not control the organism". If you take any of the Levin's talks, he never outright dismisses the genome's influence on life - rather, he finds clever ways to show that is not an only influence, and membrane that carries a charge can very much decide a cell's fate. 9:11 - shows a schoolbook pic of a cell. "Very complicated diagram". 11:40 - Experiments with mycoplasma bacteria show that injecting a DNA from one strain into a cell husk of another transforms the second strain into the first - wouldn't Denis' genome transform an egg husk into his zygote? I bet this is even more well-researched, I'm just too lazy to open Scholar at 1AM :B
Yeah thanks for commenting and sparing me time to write about the same... Noble, in all fairness, would have to emphasize that the great majority of epigenetic controls have GENETIC BASIS... The fact that it's not just proteins (but RNAs) doesn't necessarily change our "genecentric" views that much. If the fanclub of Noble would even try to understand the complex new definition(s) of genes, they would know more about Dawkins position! Of course, we don't know nearly enough about the implications of these "epigenes" on evolutionary processes. Period. That doesn't mean that one can come up with a vague philosophy demanding the change of some (assumed) paradigms. Is Noble's proposal even coherent and consistent in it's details? Does it have sufficient details to call it a framework? If not, then he's just another "prophet"... Maybe Dawkins is propagating too reductionist views (I'm not familiar to all the details). I've heard him on Sean Carroll's Mindscape, and this men is the epitome of philosophically narrow mindedness (I do not mean this as derogatory!) which is not that typical for most biological scientist. (Many of us are explicitly "plagued" by mystical ideas we try to gain control over). Maybe Dawkins just tried too hard to counterbalance all the spiritually inspired misinformations about biology for too long, so that he doesn't even dare to venture into "muddy waters" of more holistic approaches (the majority of which should learn more about science before criticizing it and proposing new paradigms 😅) I don't know much about the state of embryonic cloning efforts since the times of Dolly, when "my people" (I'm a molecular biologist) were bold enough to think that somatic cell content with some minor (?) tweakings is able to recreate a healthy new organism of such a complex species... 😅 If one takes into consideration that even a full sequence of the whole genome of such complex species wasn't available at the time: it's no wonder that epigenetic control was greatly ignored 😢
Plus fatty acids are synthesized by enzymes, which are proteins coded by genes. And half of membrane is made of proteins coded by genes. And these proteins do virtually all functions of membranes.
@@xcforce9067 this channel was giving platform to personalities involved in UAP research... 🤔 "research"... So one can guess, what kind of thinking governs lots of viewers here. If one can't really distinguish between science and (bad) sci-fi and permanently projects own fictions onto the world: (s)he will end up in the thus created maze, trying to convince others that we are trapped/doomed 🤫 So for such people even the words of Noble can be a bit of fresh air of sanity. So, it's rather relative regards the human psyche. Perhaps even this video is step for them towards more rationality instead of just post hoc rationalizing their inner confusions
Thank you Curt for bringing another intellectual conversation to my screen. What I particularly like about this is discovering the science behind what was intuitively revealed to me in meditation years ago. Much appreciated!
The paradigm shift that’s occurring right now is tremendous. Cognition and memory without neurons, electromagnetic field research turning Harvard educated biologists panspsychist…but maybe the most incredible development is the possibility that the brain uses entangled particles to process information, and perhaps generate consciousness, faster than light. Why? The implication that consciousness arises at the level of the subatomic, for starters. And second, the particles in your brain are entangled with particles in other minds, stars, etc. Did I mention that StuartHammeroff recently discovered that anesthesia turns off consciousness by reversing the spin of electrons?
Most anaesthetics work differently from each other, but generally serve the same purpose - to numb the sensation of pain. This can be by blocked the transmission of ions across synaptic clefts, or by inhibiting the area of the brain that responds to pain entirely. However, there are none which I have heard of that reverse the spin of electrons. A notion like that would be taken down by any chemist, because every atom has an equal number of up and down spin electrons plus 1 for the odd number of protons. Thus, I would like to request your source as this could be the discovery that changes our perspective on all of chemistry, physics, and biology as we know it.
Maybe I am wrong but nitrogen does not have equal spin up and down electrons. There are 3 ekectron with spin up let say. The same for elements d and f. And the number of protons doesn't count
@@emmb7688 hence why i said +1 for odd numbers of protons. The number of electrons always equals the number of protons, except in ions and a few other particles.
Incredibly interesting, I’ve had many many questions from watching wildlife and science programs and genetics at a very low level. However now this begins to shed some light and reason to my questions. I’ll have to watch the linked video, thanks and take care.
Curt, have you ever had Bruce Lipton on? He would be such a wonderful guest for your podcast & for this series in particular! (Love this series btw 👏🏻😍)
I would argue the words and ontology are a bad metaphor. What is a blueprint? What is an antenna? Is it an imprecation? Or more of a reflection? Our language fails simply defining the Behavior.
The major distinction to me seems to be about BIOLOGICAL evolution of an already established (even if utterly simplistic by today's standards) CELLULAR organism - which requires deep understanding of molecular biology, systems biology, bioinformatics, regulatory networks... ... but not anywhere near to being able to describe how such a LIVING cell capable of Darwinian evolution can arise from prebiological system(s) - which probably requires grasping much more abstract concepts (from topology, AI - eg. gradient descents, thermodynamics - especially the nature of entropy, energy transfer - with emphases on membrane structures before proteins...) which we only began to join into somewhat coherent ideas: So as long as we have so confused ideas about how a primitive cell can be assembled: having very speculative views on those constraints that were really relevant to the sustainability of a protocell without complex proteins. One has to solve how the most basic form of ribosomal RNA arose synchronously with some rather limited (but very "creative") information coding and storage apparatus - which likely wasn't as focused on RNA as RNA world hypothesis suggested in the past... (Nowadays they try to incorporate simple "randomly" coded peptides as facilitators): Layperson tend to think they know what randomness means 😅. Only if they had the slightest clues about probabilities... Not speaking about the concept(s) of entropy... How (if!) quantum processes affect the formation of stable cycles of chemical transformations... Also, there are attempts at "creating" artificial cells of which current state I know little about. Dawkins views seem to be rather mechanistic (which was and still is a very useful attitude for designing experiments that give us somewhat clear answers)... On the other hand, Noble's ideas I'm less acquainted with but seem to be too vague: Still, the core of his ideas ("purpose" arising from stochastic processes) is not that "spiritual" as many layperson seem to be fascinated about. What are the major implications of Noble's emphasized ideas on the prax: eg. On the design of experiments ?
@@johnfakes1298how much do you know about molecular biology (in any area) outside Levin's work? Is his approach really that much outstanding in view of the accumulated knowledge in evo-devo and embryology? Or is he "simply" a great thinker with rhetoric skills and good intuition (and got lucky with the direction of research he is involved in) who is willing to market his approach much more than a handful of other researchers with comparable achievements? 🤔
The work of Denis Noble is explosive far beyond science. It is of magnitude that is difficult to comprehend now, but I bet it is a breakthrough physicists can only dream about.
I am so inspired by this! What types of controlled experiments can be done to properly done to discover what the control pathways for how organisms can edit DNA, and uncover their corresponding function!
Genes are not a blueprint for life but the are a blueprint. People get stuck in extremely narrow definitions all the time and a blueprint does not mean it gives all the detailed information for something. Blueprints can be rough outlines with very little detail or can be very complex and detailed design which still do not include the fact that living people have to read those blueprints and use a wide variety of tools and materials to make what those blueprints are for, and even with the most detailed blueprints for something like a building, hat final building almost never exactly fits the blueprint. The DNA is a long term memory storage which is not the only memory storage within the supercomputing swarm intelligence of a single germline cell. Those other forms of memory within a cell are also blueprints and in addition to the various blueprints (programming code is a better analogy than blueprint) the nanotech computing machinery of the cell is required to read, interpret, and use those blueprints. Further, in a multicellular organism there is some degree of interaction between the mother's cells and the developing zygote -> morula -> blastocyst -> embryo -> fetus. It is a complex system and the memory storage is like the memory storage of a computer, only one part of the whole complex system.
Very insightful. Related, I've been thinking of the same concepts at different scales. Aren't a country's laws its genome? It changes according to negative stressors. And we change it consciously (some people for the worst). It's the fundamental rule every individual is expected to follow, and if they don't we consider them problematic and they can be removed from the functional parts of the society; as proteins they'd be removed from the functional part of the cell.
@@V1brationCanine well, if we begin at the most simple life we know of, viruses, they have a swarm intelligence which uses RNA or DNA as memory. We are not necessarily sure if there are other forms of memory viruses use that we have not yet figured out. But, that swarm intelligence is the fundamental building block of the swarm intelligence of single cells. Within a single cell there are very large numbers of intracellular vesicles required for the swarm intelligence of a single cell to work. These vesicles are like domesticated symbiotic viruses which have been a building block within the single cell. Further, when dealing a swarm of single cells or a multicellular individual creature there are very large numbers of extracellular vesicles required for the swarm intelligence of either the swarm of single cells or the multicellular individual creature. The type of swarm intelligence that exists within a swarm of individual cells is used within multicellular individual creatures. Between groups of multicellular individual creatures exists a swarm intelligence, especially of the same species, but also with other species. In fact, such swarm intelligence arises between virus swarms, single celled individuals and swarms, and multicellular individuals and swarms. Human intelligence is swarm intelligence. Our minds are not singular, but swarm minds, and this is for an individual. Each cell in the human body is a living conscious aware tiny swarm intelligence. Between two or more humans forms both conscious and subconscious swarm intelligences. Between humans and other life forms there exists swarm intelligence we barely understand. With perhaps the most important human technology, complex spoken and written language, humans began extending part of their intelligence, part of their minds, out side of themselves into that technology. This has continued today where artificial intelligence is an extension of human minds. What that means is that human civilization is a swarm intelligence which partly exists within humans and partly exists within our technology and actively interacts with all the life forms human civilization has any form of exchange of information with. So... This is a long winded way of saying... Yes. Written laws are a type of blueprint/code which does not contain everything but contains a great deal of very important information for the swarm intelligence/mind of human civilization.
@@V1brationCanine that censoring seems to be random. All intelligent life is swarm intelligence based and between all life forms which exchange information in any form there arises swarm intelligence. With humanity we have been extending our swarm intelligence outside of ourselves into our technology of language and then later into more and more of our technology, the leading edge of which is AI. Our laws are a blueprint/code which is a significant part of our swarm intelligence, just as our DNA is.
I think it's time that Denis Noble or someone else describes what parts of the standard Darwinian theory can be dispelled or declared obsolete in the light of the latest discoveries in the science of Cell biology. So, for example, is the view proven wrong of life forms changing through unbroken incremental changes over hundreds of millions of years to give rise to speciation, as Dawkins has proposed?Secondly, is it time to revisit and reexamine Lamarckian theory of evolution?
Life is not a substance, it is infinite we really need to understand about this. It is only the body that passes, the life force within then moves on and goes back to it's source which is the infinite ocean of consciousness. One of the reasons we fail to understand is because we are so used to having this mind within our brain do all the work, that's what it does it can only deal with breaking things up into chunks, but the infinite cannot be broken up. We should understand that this mind is separate from us, when the body dies, it too will pass when the brain dies. If we say 'My' body, 'My' Eyes, what is it that is saying 'My'? We need to understand that first and foremost. There is the 'Owner' and the 'Owned' 'My body' I own the body, so who is 'I' That is something that has to be experienced, thinking will not be of any use, thought belongs to thought, not the reality, reality has to be experienced. There is that within us that experiences, it has nothing to do with our mind, it is that part of us that experiences joy. When we can grasp this a bit more we can start to understand that our mind only plays a part in certain things, not for everything, especially life, life is an experience and belongs to that part of us which is infinite, when we can be in touch with that there is elation and joy and peace, we can stop the cycle of searching with our mind, knowing that our mind is limited to the physical whereas our true self is not physical because it is infinite. Let the mind be still to allow the true experience of life to be felt, it's way way too simple for our very very complicated mind, this time the mind must 'Shut up' and be quiet for once.
I've heard it explained that consciousness is fundamental, aligning with information theory, quantum mechanics (QM), and quantum field theory (QFT). We traditionally assume matter to be fundamental, but QM reveals matter as probabilistic, challenging its fundamental nature unless we accept reality as inherently probabilistic and seemingly random. In QFT, matter no longer exists as in classical models. Instead, there are only interactions between fields, which give rise to the conscious perception of matter. Without consciousness or interaction, matter doesn't exist in a classical sense; it's merely a wave function. This ties to the QM measurement problem, where the wave function collapses upon observation, implying consciousness’s role in shaping reality. The Copenhagen interpretation even ties this collapse to the observer’s consciousness, suggesting that observation is crucial for defining reality. Further, information theory posits the universe as an information processing system, aligning with the view that reality is about informational states rather than material substances. Physicist John Wheeler’s Participatory Anthropic Principle and Integrated Information Theory (IIT) support this, suggesting that observers (consciousness) are necessary to bring the universe into being, and that consciousness is an intrinsic property of any system capable of integrating information. Panpsychism extends this, asserting that consciousness is a universal feature of all matter, implying even the simplest particles possess some form of consciousness. Thus, without consciousness or interaction, the material world as we perceive it wouldn't manifest. The classical concept of matter depends on our perception, shaped by consciousness and what you elected to believe when taught it school, or learned elsewhere. Science is really telling us today that without consciousness, there would be no perception, hence no reality as we understand it. It's up to you, if you believe it is reasonable to adopt the belief that the universe "exists" in the same way when consciousness isn't here to interact with it. I think that's the materialistic view. It assumes a material world even in the face of modern science saying it just doesn't exist.
Polarity seems to lie at bottom of everything in our reality. Ergo consciousness must have its other and is not everything. If consciousness is characterized as being without *necessary* limits, then its other would be characterized the hard physical limits of what can and cannot be, given particular parameters in a physicalized space where matter *matters*. A theory of everything lies here where consciousness can dream up anything but any idea must be-gets to be-put to the test under given parameters, which are the particular parameters of a given material universe (whereas another material universe could have other parameters and thus test other ideas that work for that universe as dreamed up by unlimited consciousness). 🤓🙏
Respected Sir,very politely I would like to submit that 1.A cell is a complex physical biological entity2.Where as a gene is biological information and a non physical entity .3What Dawkins tells in his books is viewed through the objective fact of evolution.4Replicator (genetic information) came first on planet earth both in time and history5 A cell itself is a complex entity and it was not created on the blink of an eye but gradually evolved and built by gene.
As a molecular biologist I gave you thumbs up, BUT: How much do you/we know about the evolution (development) of the genetic coding system? (Including and with special emphasis on the ribosomal RNA...)
I think, to steelman this case is relatively easy... but to take it as is, that is rather difficult. As a non-biologist, the way I view it is that genes are a *collection* of blueprints. Which ones are expressed is determined by many factors outside of itself. I think the effective claim here is that it seems we have greatly understudied the mechanisms which select the active expressions. Maybe I am off the mark here.
I love how he calls his book "My Little Book" and it reminds me of the passage in the book of revelation where an angel whose voice is like that of a lion tells John to eat a little book or scroll which taste like honey but is bitter to the belly. I always think that the angel was describing LSD, because it's like a little scroll or book, but it taste bitter and is sweet to the belly. Anyway, I like his *little book* and I'm reading it now! Sorry for the schizoid posting, but I thought that since these are theolocutions and I'm annonymous I could speakn freely.
As I wrote on Facebook in March 2021 with clarifying notes added in parenthesis : "About gene and evolution(as defined by small changes(due to natural selection propagated via a mechanism of hereditary transfer (which is genes as we understands it in biology today)) ultimately leading to a new offspring(species) that is different from the original parent); here is my question. As I understand it, genes are on the chromosomes as base pairs (some may be determined by complex relation between base pairs on many chromosomes but there are there on the chromosomes). This means that there are only a finite number of individuals possible. Then now suppose in a thought experiment (Gedanken), we produced all the individuals that a given totality of gene of a given species allows, then now if any two among that sample is combined to produce an offspring (allowed by the rules of the mechanism of hereditary transfer(DNA replication )), but that offspring should be already there in the old sample; so where is evolution? To me it seems that this genetic mechanism forfeits a global evolution; that is to say, this genetic algorithm (mechanism of DNA replication) does not allows a global evolution in a sense that if that mechanism is carried out in perfect precision THEN A GIVEN SPECIES IS A CLOSED SYSTEM, so it can not give rise to a new species as above Gedanken experiment shows. In a perfectly DNA replicating system, evolution can be looked as a local apparent change due to our not seeing the whole assemble of all possible allowed individuals by the whole gene of the species simultaneously."So the only way a new species can arise from an old one is via the imperfections in the hereditary transfer mechanism which is in line with Lamark's idea as pointed out in the discussion between Prof. Denis and Darwkin on iai channel.
since then I have been wanting to ask to my biologist friends this question............ If your are asked, what would be your top ten most important experiments (physical or gedanken (or thought experiment)) ever proposed and performed in biological sciences that has decisively settled the status ("proof or disproof") of a major theory in biology..............because I think my gedanken(thought) experimental proposition which showed the non-compatibility of evolution (via natural selection) and genetics to explain the origin of species via evolution(via natural selection) would be there in that top ten..................
@@dhargyal2012I am not a biologist and I have no axe to grind either way on this topic. Having said that, do you know how many possible humans will have to exist to carry out your gadanken? We have roughly 4.5million sites in human genome that can be individually different. Each site can have 4 possible entries leading to a whopping 4^4.5e6 individuals. To make you understand how big that number is, realize that there are an estimated 10^80 atoms in the universe!
dawkins scowls too much for me to believe that he's actually considering anyone else's position. He seems like someone who just really gets a kick out of telling people there's no god. He's obvoiously a very intelligent person, but i have to agree with Mr. Noble here that Dawkins seems to not understand many of the counterarguments he's been presented with. He seems to react with anger at anyone who disagrees with him and he's not great at hiding it.
One of them has too restrained philosophical mindset, the other one is too boundless. The majority of science about evolutionary processes is actually between the two. So this whole debate is to a great extent artificial: aimed at laypersons who don't have enough knowledge to make an authentic view on the topic
i haven't read the book but i'm just thinking of hermit crabs cooperating to change shells. the shellfish are not very selfish lol...also what about bees, where the workers will die to protect the queen without hesitation. watch any of those live eagle nest cams and you can see the mother AND the father taking turns to sit on the eggs, not moving even when there is a blizzard and they are covered in snow.
@@trucid2 well thats a pretty good guess that i didn't read the book considering my comment literally begins with "I haven't read the book". Anyway, I agree with Mr. Noble that applying the word "selfish" to a gene is silly. It seems like dawkins just want to assign objectively negative traits to the underworkings of nature as part of quixotic personal war against spirituality. He could just as easily have labled it "the brilliant gene" or "the cooperative gene" or "the incredibly effective gene" but labeling something as selfish and reducing all of it's successes to expressions of that selfishness just fits with dawkins' downer personality and gets more clicks on the internet.
Fascinating and inspiring program, thank you for making this brilliant discovery known to the lay people like myself. The details were spoken in a scientific language I cannot fathom, but Noble is careful and gentle enough to convey the spirit of the new discovery - enough to set us free from the cage of thought that limits possibilities. I am beset with the mystery of a person "born again" by some spiritual action. It's intriguing to me. Am I at least getting warm in concluding that Noble is saying that there is new biological understanding that may make physical and molecular sense of the notion of RENEWAL that is quite apart from, and therefore not bound by previous orthodoxy? If so, then what are the parameters of these possibilities and how exactly can they be made to occur? A Part Two is begging Mate!!!
There must be a tremendous amount of data that determines what we are and if it's not from the DNA then where is it from? How is that information stored?
If you look into evo-devo and embryology and population genetics etc. you'll find that Noble's proposals are already (at least implicitly) being incorporated into the scientific thinking but we aren't at the point where we could say pro or contra that some ancient versions of basic householding genes weren't sufficient to encode all the information necessary to make such PROTOCELLS that under then existing conditions were capable of biological evolution, although by today's standards we wouldn't call them more alive than the existing viruses. We only began to join into somewhat coherent frameworks the more abstract concepts (from topology - structure/function relations of short peptides and RNA molecules, from AI - eg. the action of gradient descents on configuration spaces of biochemicals, from thermodynamics - especially the nature of entropy, or about energy transfer - with emphases on membrane structures before the advent of complex proteins, etc etc. Noble may be arguing with Dawkins (who certainly doesn't represent the whole of biology or even genetics), but Noble seems to make scientifically not really substantiated suppositions: eg. It's true that there is a great redundancy in the majority of different parts of molecular networks, so a loss of individual gene can be overcome to a great extent, but it doesn't follow in the least that you can simultaneously knock out randomly any great number of the genes (talking about multicellular organisms).
So what is the blueprint if not genes? Does he not agree that mutations can cause phenotypic changes? I just clicked on the video, so sorry if they answer these questions in the video.
Yes, anthropologic SOCIAL SYSTEMS , Based on a certain relationships people find theselves in , then political systems corresponding to those production relations to meet basic needs of life, then culture, art and morality corresponding to that all ....
Competition has it's uses, but they should take a back seat to cooperation. But several hundred years of capitalist brainwashing would have us believe otherwise
With all due regards, nobody or no scientist ever said that GENES are blueprint of life. It was always said that DNA is blueprint of life. When we say DNA it also includes a lot of non-gene elements which we are now discovering them to be regulatory in nature.
Penrose, Levin, and Noble are right. There are degrees of mind all the way from the prokaryote to the human. All that's real is our emotions and thoughts (spiritualists have always known this) and it's those that drive evolution. Once the patterns that only chemical molecules can produce are sufficiently complex, a protomind results. Stress causes DNA changes (consciously observable or otherwise) and this is directly observable in people with severe childhood trauma; it can be further seen when they learn to change their thoughts in order to change their feelings and body. Consider the following: if a higher life form (perhaps with a higher spacial dimension) viewed us through a microscope, wouldn't all they see likewise be proteins? Like we observe the extremely small as a sort of 2D perspective in first person, the higher being would observe a 3D perspective which is also 'flat' to them. Once we further expand all these ideas we will find the 'cures' for Parkinson's, cancers, etc. I believe it's all bioelectrical and due to stress or perturbation. Related, people who are not resistant to perturbation, in other words sensitive, are more susceptible to these stressors and so these conditions.
I totally agree with Prof Denis Noble. Gene is the blue print of physical body. Life is not the body. Life require a body for sure. But, there is no permanent glue between life and body. Life can leave the body (death). We need a completely different type of knowledge to experience the life and it cannot be observed through physical process or tool.
Interesting! The call for a multifactorial perspective in the place of a reductionist one is the most important takeaway. And the need to look into the functional networks which enable the building blocks to function in the first place! Hey Curt, have you looked into the work of Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai, an MIT PhD in systems biology? A podcast with him would be highly appreciated by your audience.
I find it amazing how intelligent people can talk about and describe everything inside a room (a subject) but bc of intellectual bias (derived from unchecked dogmas) make them completely ignore the elephant in the room. One can't never get the answer until one ditches Anthropocentrism. When he says at the end there "to rescue nature" he simply confirms his anthropocentric bias. The problem in all of science, past, present and future is always the same the political/philosophical bias of every group of scientists. We can not develop a clear view of how things actually work with muddy glasses. We either understand how Anthropocentrism is preventing humanity from seeing things for what they are, or we will continue being a disease on this planet. Physiology, Sociology, Phylosophy and Theology are studying the exact same thing just from different angles. The same truth solves all their problems at once.
Amazing. Makes a lot of sense. So: 1) Do we have a descriptive language for a cell, i.e. can we indeed describe to a level where we can replicate a mother's egg cell at the time of conception? 2) Would a cell description as a static snapshot be sufficient or are there processes that differ between cells and need to be captured (diff between a video and a still), 3) Is the combination of the cell description and the DNA sufficient or are there additional factors, e.g. chemical compositions outside the cell? Further, it does sound like the cell is the Architect necessary to build something, but the DNA could indeed be the Blueprint, but without an actor (the Architect) it would just be dead matter - so DNA is the git repository that Life uses would be a more apt description? :)
Here's an example of what Einstein called spooky action at a distance. I saw on the news a picture of a little black girl watching Kamala Harris accept the nomination for President. It took me a minute for it to come to me what the picture was saying and I cried a bit, partly for missing it. I stopped and wrote down what it meant to me beyond what I had already missed. "We recognize that the girl's life is greatly influenced from what she sees." We see just enough to know she is a black girl and from that we can extrapolate what this moment in time represents as the girl learning to believe what is possible for herself which she had never seen before, no one has. The girl is the template consisting of many changeable variables which adjust spontaneously and inevitably based solely on environment. Each spontaneous change also alters our view of our environment. What we experience is determined by what we experience and the means by which we experience it through our senses based on an ever changing template. I'm just saying, we didn't just fall out of a coconut tree. This is the reason for the golden rule. This is why we should love our enemies as ourselves. Plainly, every thing that makes us different from one another can only be because of the one "thing" which is the same in each of us as our being, the life of every body.
30:29 By Penrose and Hameroff's work on Orch OR we also know the tubulin can communicate via quantum entanglement and "superposition collapse" so the communication is not only instantaneous, it is also retro-causal!!
- We finally managed to study the DNA in the nucleus which is the size of a golf ball! - Nice. Now you have to study all the routes at the scale of an entire country.
Dawkins also tells that evolution is about differential survival of self replicating entities called genes.We should not forget that DNA is the hardware and gene is the software.Genetic information is potentially immortal through its ability to make its reproductive copies.Evolution is about change in gene frequencies in evolutionary time.
But still you are talking about BIOLOGICAL evolution... ...but how did the PROTOCELLS arise? Do we have anything resembling a consensus on those bio-chemico-physical processes that were necessarily involved in the construction of protocells before the advent of complex proteins? I've heard a bit (a lot in laymen's standards) about different proposals but those doesn't seem to be integrable into a single consistent framework even in the broadest terms. But again I'm familiar only with particular approaches so maybe in the last decade there are more integrative ones
The stability of the cellular physiological system is very important here I think. By stability I mean thermodynamical stability, since our cells and our body in general is a thermodynamically open system ,the energy we receive is being used to maintain the entropy charecterestics of a cell or the body as low as possible with minimum disorders. That is since we are also an open system to the surrounding environment ,inputs from the surroundings to our cellular system will always tend to increase it's entropy charecterestics,but luckily for us years and years of complex evolution helped our cells with a great machinery to counter it by using energy to produce protiens that are supportive to maintain the low entropy, So When this balance is broken system collapses I think the agency of the system as a whole should mentioned as the controller, which includes not only genes and proteins but also all of a cell's or organisms constituents as functional parts. But who plays the major role? the weight goes with the proteins definitely.
Месяц назад
In computer systems you have layers of complexity. The CPU hardware, microcode, CPU code set, firmware, operating system, Java Virtual Machine, Java application implementing a domain specific language, and the final control code written in this domain specific language. Or even more layers with languages embedded into each other. Such complex dependency stacks are the normal way to manage complexity. Biological life might have something similar for managing complexity.... We also have such layers in telco networks as described by ITU-T G.805 and G.809. The layering principle is a generic way of organizing complex systems. In that perspective, DNA might be somewhere in the middle of the stack, not even close to the top.
Classical and Modern physics says: 0D (non-natural, indivisible) = not fundamental 1D-4D (natural, divisible) = fundamental Can someone please tell me how stuff that can be divided further (divisible) is fundamental? And stuff that can't be divided further (indivisible) is somehow not fundamental?
The association between genes and physical traits/development is well established for many decades. That DNA is written to by living cells is also well known. Guy seems to be an unbelievable quack and fighting windmills from 30 years ago…
Sadly the knowledge of general audience is stuck in times even before those thirty plus years, so no wonder they think that Noble's "rebel" ideas have that much novelty and that they are willfully ignored... Always this conspiratorial appeal to the shortcomings of mainstream, which mainly serves to distract from those "mainstream" voices that properly criticise these proposed "new" ways of thinking. It so easy to propose new ways of looking at things in such broad terms as Noble speaks about but what are the evidences that clearly support his stance in more details? How should experiments and/or their evaluation be changed according to his proposal(s)? Sorry but even I could "philosophise" in ways I hear him on YT videos
@@Littleprinceleon There is an epidemic of „scientists“ who should switch career to philosophy,, given their propensity to occupy themselves with unfalsifiyable ideas.
@@pyalot honestly, science a little bit weird. We cant make "new invention" every day. But people need PhD for everything and "new invention" is a must. Science at very high level now, mostly, philosophical argument with no real science breakthrough at all. The finest example is, do vaccine really needed or just a broad day light robbery from pharmaceutical industry? Science Expert CANT SOLVE THAT SIMPLE QUESTION. All we have is, a political answer type from the self proclaimed, scientist. PATHETIC.
It's, for some reason, the way some older scientist go. Especially if they were known experts on their field. At some point they have too much time on their hand, start to think about x, y, z and believe they have more insight into the topic than the actual researcher of that topic. Biology is a broad field and if you are an expert of one system it doesn't make you an expert on the other. For example, a bacteriologist vs a virologist. And in his case, the topics are even farther apart. Basically, they see connections where there are none, selectively consume information that confirms their view, ignore information that is against their view or ridicule it as mAiNsTreaM. Then they find a layman audience that believes their schwurbel to 100% and we have this. There was a former well accepted physicist who went down that spiral, claiming that vitamin c can solve all problems. Dawkins is also one contender, dude is only citing his own works in his books. Thoughts are not facts, philosophising about something doesn't make it a fact, and philosophy in itself as a concept of logic to in/validate the hypotheses made. But that gets hardly instrumentalised in their thought processes anyway.
Noble totally misunderstands Richard Dawkins "selfish gene". Noble appears to be saying evolution is driven by epigenetics. It doesn't really take much thought to realize that can't be. I mean, it may be possible, but it wouldn't be good for the organism. I do find it interesting how many people, some of them very intelligent, have a hard time accepting evolution by natural selection. For a real understanding of "The Selfish Gene", I suggest people read it, rather than get it second hand. It is a seminal work.
You do realise the Selfish Gene concludes with a note of how genetics alone cannot explain evolution? This also lead to Susan Blackmore have here moment with memetics.
@@JLT9150 Having read "The Selfish Gene" a number of times, I don't remember that it concluded with anything other than evolution by natural selection. Perhaps you could refresh my memory.
@@JLT9150 Well, I can thank you for this. I went back to my copy of "The Selfish Gene" to re-read the final chapter. After doing so, I can only conclude you have read some other book with the same name. Either that, or you have taken someone else's word for what it says. Dawkins not only made the gene the central element of evolution, but he went even further. He posited organisms (like plants and animals, people, etc.) as being the devices genes used to preserve themselves. He examines all of nature in light of the centrality of the gene.
at 21'59', I cannot find the British medical journal paper titled 'The genome does not predict cardiovascular diseases cancer'. Can Denis Noble gives me the link? Thanks.
Isn't the cell membrane growth during mitosis mediated by structures that are built through protein synthesis? So after fertilization, the shared DNA is controlling the addition of the cell wall as it divides. How does that mean that DNA isn't the basis?
The DNA helical tree is the present for anyone climbing it. Like the proverbial Indian rope trick, all of us are climbing one all the time. No one knows where one is headed except that it peters out into nowhere at death.
I just watched up to 9:30 and as a computer programmer, a thought occurred to me, that the genome is like a programming library, while the main code or the main process is in the cell itself mb in the form of RNAs. So yes, i guess the main paradigm misslead us to think of DNA as a program but it's not, it's a receipe to build proteins, that's all there is to it, so there is no fixed program life. this brings us back to the game of life thing, simple rules that produce complex behavior when there is thousands of invidual cells involved.
Genes are the center of all life. I don’t like how some scientists overamplify the idea of the epigenome and cell physiology. They are important too, but all of them exist to serve their genes. Think about how much we can alter lifeforms by just modifying genes-almost everything. Genes might not predict diseases in the later stages of the human lifespan, but that doesn’t mean gene-centric biology is wrong.
Hamburger meat is at the center of a hamburger. But where do the cow, the farmer, the farm, the earth, and the sun fit in? They're all part of the hamburger fruition process. Similarly, saying genes are at the center of life ignores the evolutionary environments and macro processes like competition, survival, and reproduction whuch causes the fruition of life. As Carl Sagan pointed out, to create an apple pie from scratch, you need to create the universe first. Likewise, to create a life form from genes, you need an appropriate environment. Not so much as a universe but at least a fitting environment which would juat be a small universe. With genes, but no appropriate environment, life is not possible. Prove it to yourself by trying to grow a human embryo in the abyss of deep space. Genes are there, but life is nowhere, so how can genes be the center of life? It's so simple but we gloss over reality as it exists. Genes can be seen as the center of life in our imagination, but they are part of a much longer process. They should barely be called a "thing," as they are constantly changing and mutating by design. Genes are interwoven with their environment, evolving over time, and are inseparable from the broader context of life’s processes. Some things are simply ideas and have nothing to do with what we see. "Genes are the center of life" is one of those ideas, and so is the inherently existing apple pie that exists without a universe. However, it is useful to consider genes the center of life for various experimental intrepretations as well as philosophical discussions. They so so obviously not, though.
For example, some might say, ‘Memes don’t have any power to replicate themselves; it is all done by humans and social networks.’ They argue, ‘Humans can alter memes whatever they want!’ But we all know that individual efforts to replicate a meme are not as important as the content of the meme itself (in the context of surrounding culture).
Except in planaria. Michael Levin has showed that by changing their bioelectrical state and not their genome, he can make them reproduce with different numbers of heads, etc.
Perhaps until now the role of gene editing systems was under appreciated..we don’t go around thinking how we can live our lives in such a way as to improve our genes for our offspring’s benefit and in sport you’ve either got the genes or you don’t..of course the genes are central but the idea that we can biologically/physiologically modify them is a new paradigm..
You say that "all of them exist to serve their genes". But as Noble points out, DNA is a dead molecule. How can it control behaviour? The idea that dna is used and controlled by living things in order to sustain life is much more likely.
Only a few minutes in to this, I have heard Prof Noble's theory before - this will be good. It also occurs to me how this challenges the current 'gene therapy' doctrine that is driving health treatments.
@@Littleprinceleon Randy is a powerhouse in the history of cognitive science and he has been arguing for well over 2 decades now that if we want to find the (or any) mechanism for memory storage, we need to apply what we've learned about memory over the past century in computer science. He has a book co-authored with Richard King called "Memory and the Computational Brain" which would be a great topic of discussion for a ToE episode. David Glanzman is a researcher who has soundly demonstrated that at least some types of memory are stored within nucleic acids, at least within the species Aplasia. There's another researcher named Hesslow whose lab has demonstrated similarly that similar types of "behavioral" memory are also stored sub-cellularly. In particular, his lab has demonstrated that the timing of the puff-blink response in rabbits is stored within a singular purkinje cell in the cerebellum. I suggested Glanzman instead of Hesslow because, while Gallistel has referenced the results of both in support of his general view on memory, Glanzman seems to already have shown interest in appearing in podcasts. He has appeared on some smaller channels I've seen, and he's pretty well spoken. You should check them both out!
@@Littleprinceleon They are both well respected researchers who are challenging the paradigm of how computational neuroscience is currently conceptualized. Gallistel has a very interesting book called "Memory and the Computational Brain" and Glanzman has published researching demonstrating that certain types of memory are stored in sub-cellular mechanisms of neurons (as opposed to synaptic connections). They both have already appeared on many other neuroscience podcasts here in RUclips if you want to hear more from them. For example: Gallistel: ruclips.net/video/D4Fbfs0MEBk/видео.html Glanzman: ruclips.net/video/ErLkuXw-qSg/видео.html
They are both well respected researchers who are challenging the paradigm of how computational neuroscience is currently conceptualized. Gallistel has a very interesting book called "Memory and the Computational Brain" and Glanzman has published research with results demonstrating that certain types of memory are stored in sub-cellular mechanisms of neurons (as opposed to synaptic connections). So has Hesslow with eye-blink responses in rabbits, which is arguably more important given they are much closer to humans in terms of ontogony, but he doesn't seem to do podcasts, and Glanzman is certainly well spoken enough to get the point across anyway. Him and Gallistel both have already appeared on many other neuroscience podcasts here in RUclips if you want to hear more from them. Gallistel: ruclips.net/video/D4Fbfs0MEBk/видео.html Glanzman: ruclips.net/video/ErLkuXw-qSg/видео.html
@@jeewillikers thanks... I'll try to write feedback... I hope these two videos are showcasing: there's lot's I like to look after (but time and cognitive capacity wise I tend to dismiss even interesting approaches. Anyway, thank for suggestions...
The genetic code is the blueprint for life. It can be changed and read differently, but the central dogma of molecular biology is correct. Nobody disputes the cell and external environment has feedback on the genome.
Exactly... the idea of natural selection is that the environment has a HUGE influence over the genome. The genome would not exist without environmental influence. OF COURSE the genome changes, that doesn't make it any less of a blueprint for every single protein that makes up your body. Even the simplest of the microorganisms are subject to random mutations across their lifespan, nobody was denying that. I'd argue, even the capacity some organisms have to raise/lower their protection against mutation IS part of that genetic blueprint, and if we have that capacity is because it was naturally selected through our evolutive history. It's likely that facilitating mutaton under stressing situations where we might need to adapt quicker to changing circumstances was actually a trait that helped the survival of some of our ancestry
![Eminem - Fuel (Shady Edition) feat. Westside Boogie & GRIP [Official Audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/k1OquBida9s/mqdefault.jpg)
Listen on Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/4gL14b92xAErofYQA7bU4e
Timestamps:
00:00 - Intro
02:05 - Overview of Lecture
04:30 - What is the Genome?
07:22 - Is the Genome the Book of Life?
12:16 - 20th Century Gene-Centric Biology is Wrong
18:03 - Neo-Darwinism is Incorrect
19:42 - Implications for Medical Science
27:17 - Next Steps for Biology
33:10 - A Challenge to the World's Scientists
37:10 - Outro / Support TOE
I will say with the research work of Michael Levin I think it's pretty apparent that jeans are not the important part it's not the DNA it's the RNA the electrical differentiation patterns in the calcium grow complex biological structures... basically standing wave functions of electrical differentiation promote the growth of complex biological structures as observed by the research work of Michael Levin
14:52 this is why i can connect so well with women i have finished inside of... No wonder why women start acting like the man they are with... sharing the same Source energy.
I really like this guy he thinks like me... lots of logical deduction going on here...
X
i think this kinda falls apart when you can compare the cellular structure between any human alive and discover that everything in the cell SEPERATE from the dna is in fact identical from human to human. and in fact these cell structures are the same going back 250 million years. so its much more relevant to call the cell structures "tools" and the dna is a Recipe, but the process of how to USE the tools is infact EMERGENT. it is not coded in either one (cell or dna). The tool is like a hammer that swings at nails because it isnt capable of doing anything else, not because the nail told it to swing, and not because the tool selectively chooses nails over some other option, but through pure emergence, there IS no other option so the hammer swings because it exists and for no other reason, and the output is only in existence today because the right circumstances (mostly luck) have kept it around
I love how Noble respects Sheldrake ! Sheldrake came to the conclusions that genes could not dictate form and his answer was fields . Noble here is speaking on the complexity of cells and how they themselves seem to through super super nano wisps of tubes dictate to the DNA and that changes in one human life can get factored in to give information to the next generation . So much food for thought and do much knowledge behind it ❤
He is correct except he does not know how and why tubules cause the effect or cognition whose answer lies in the deeper cause of consciousness which is my scientific discovery.Time has come for me meet Professor Nobel in Oxford
@dr.mukeshc.chauhanconsciou3144 morphic resonance is a strong theory. Clearly consciousness is not the result of brain chemistry alone. The University of Alaska apparently proved ESP a decade ago, yet it hasn't had the impact it should.
@@gazmasonik2411 I agree, absolute truth is completely covered up on Earth. The sheer beauty of design of consciousness and the knowledge of field is the finest knowledge missing or very little is known in science, sadly, religions have overpowered the absolute truth with their lies which are powerful and said with such conviction that people believe lies as truth. George Orwell and Huxley were right and way ahead of their times in pointing this out. I have made scientific discoveries of Creator of our Universe - and that is completely covered up and opposed on social media and scientific platforms....
@@gazmasonik2411 Answer is learn to connect with Infinity or Singularity, nothing is hidden from it ...that is the ultimate Creator of human beings and every cell whose entire mystery I have decoded in my 30 yrs epic journey and solving the Mystery of Origin of Life-MC Theory of Everything...
@@DrMukeshChauhan😂
The DNA is nothing but a database management system storing and securing the genes. I would presume that the operating system and apps controlling this DBMS are far more sophisticated and intelligent than we've ever imagined.
Its unfortunate that humans now equate or use poor computer metaphors for these processes.
@SUMOFAT4994 40 YEARS AGO, everything was described in wiring diagrams, electrical circuits, etc.
Before electricity, everyone used metaphors based on roads, rivers,
Etc. Next? Space travel lingo?
@@davemakk195 Let's not forget all the ideas described as stress and pressure during the rise of the steam engine.
I don't know if the latest engineering feats dictate our way of thinking fundamentally or simply the language we choose to describe things in a comprehensive manner to the contemporary folk.
@@marethyu31 it's the Paradigm thing. Nothing WRONG with it. Just something we should be aware of.
I'm just thinking soon, they will be talking about how someone's blood pressure got sucked thru a low gravity wormhole, and the left Hemisphere of one's brain actually is suspended in a virtual static field between 2
Parallel Universes. 🤔😳😈
When the student is ready then the teacher will arrive. I am truly inspired Sir .awesome content and conversation. Definitely turning in and subscribed.
Welcome! Hopefully you enjoy some of the other podcasts on the channel as well (such as ruclips.net/p/PLZ7ikzmc6zlN6E8KrxcYCWQIHg2tfkqvR). - Curt
I enjoy a scientist who thinks differently than much of his contemporaries, they are the ones who often revolutionize a change.
don't confuse survivor bias here ... yes most people who revolutionize science have been ones who "think differently" but the great majority of those who "think differently" ended up being wrong and not actually revolutionizing much.
@@LM-gg5zh well, I think it’s important to give Mr. Noble a platform, it’s not like he’s some kook in a basement.
@@jonpicojones4032he's been banging the same drum for decades while mainstream genetics has kept on making discoveries and being right.
There is thinking differently, and thinking completely wrong. The original human genome sequence project estimated 20% of the total gene count of 31,778 genes to code for membrane proteins
@@LM-gg5zh Yes, but progress still relies on people who think differently, even if we don't know which ones will be right, and which ones will be crackpots. There are also a lot that are somewhere in the middle: they are completely wrong, but their way of thinking was still a necessary step on the bridge to the more insightful (and more correct) way of thinking; or they noticed something essential that no one else did, yet drew the wrong conclusions--but were still needed for progress to happen.
I don't know enough about biology to know whether he's right but Denis Noble is always a joy to listen to.
He is wrong. The original human genome sequence project estimated 20% of the total gene count of 31,778 genes to code for membrane proteins.
@@leahcimnaerc9543 thank you !
Great presentation by Denis Noble. I studied Computer Science in the 80s and after learning about the Church-Turing thesis (1950) realised that the genome could not possibly be a code of life. IF-THEN-ELSE aside, it turns out that very few things are ‘computable’.
Yet actual computers do it with on/off?
So you base your conclusion(s) on a 75 year old idea... Do you know how much have been revealed about molecular biology of the cell since?
It's like you judge today's physics based on Descartes ideas
What do you think you know about "life" that you (as a computers scientist) are so sure that genetic material is not sufficient to encode it's processes?
What is (biological) life in your view? I've emphasized biology because there are some scientific speculations about what could be life in general but let's leave those aside
Genome represent only 'traits,' not like 'life-making properties,' or we'd have found it by now... Turing-Forever ! 😂 (Another one who was around Major 'compu-teurs' in the '80's... We were BIG HEADS... :)😂
[ck it out: Adair speaking about 1980... sad we missed out:
ruclips.net/video/Yxpgwab_Qig/видео.htmlsi=uK3JPoE9Aw2nHjU8
@@lotusalivelight24 what is your definition/description of life? if you are sure that those "traits" (really every feature of the life of a cell I can think of) do not add up to that what you call life...
I often listen to these podcasts in awe at the intellect of the subject, as well as Curt's ability to ask intelligent, pointed questions of a subject in which he is not an expert. It makes me ponder my own limited knowledge of most things, and I almost always come away smarter than I started out (I think).
Denis Noble is a refreshing antidote to all the scowling, pedantic Fundamentalists that Academia is so fond of creating. Seems there's a few in the comment section.
❤
It amazes me how scientists can turn to stone. They become exactly what they supposedly despise...dogmatic
I'm guessing that your education in biology is limited to high school and you've never actually encountered any 'scowling, pedantic, fundamentalists' in academia since you are not in academia.
Am I right?
@@nagualdesign this nerds pissed
@@nagualdesign found one! Look at the scowl everybody! Look!
Excited. Bruce Lipton has said this for decades.
Ditto biology Professor Rupert Sheldrake
Thank you Curt and Dr. Noble for creating and posting this wonderful video!
Thanks for another great video, I watched his 15 min lecture before it took me to a paywall, so much thanks for posting this on RUclips!
A new/old FAVORITE Curt. Thank you for the sharing of your knowledge Dr. Noble. Curt, great job finding the Elders we need in our lives…you have gift.🤙🏼✌🏼😊
SO grateful for your channel!! You have inspired the (budding) physicist in my biologist’s heart ❤️
I love Dr. Noble’s work which can only help but open the aperture on more entrenched paradigms…..much like Michael Levin’s.
This is likely a stupid and irrelevant question, but I wondered what Dr. Noble would think about why Dolly, etal., the cloned sheep lived such shortened life’s spans? Might this have something to do with the important something from the mother’s egg he was speaking of…or in general, his speculations on what might not be able to be carried forward or lost via cloning.
Much thanks to you Curt and Dr. Noble.
Never touch DNA. Its to complex. Like putting a car repair shop to build a fighter jet on the spot.
This is so interesting.
If the membranes really AREN'T encoded in genomes, then DNA is only half the picture.
The computer equivalent would be like trying to study the memory cache without the instruction cache.
@@Maouww there are genes that synthesise membranes. He makes a crazy claim and doesn't expand on where they must come from. We eat lipids and phosphate and we have genes that assemble them into membranes.
Why would you study something you created please stop equating the body or biology with computers its NOT EVEN close.
Not trying to contradict your brilliant analogy but it's like trying to know everything about and in the computer but ignoring its builder and programmer.
Did anyone in the comments section learn anything about genetics? The original human genome sequence project estimated 20% of the total gene count of 31,778 genes to code for membrane proteins
Imagine art believing it can influence the artist’s hand 😂😂😂❤
I would find it extremely helpful if the first question for every guest is, "Do you believe consciousness is the foundation of nature, the cause from which all effects emerge?".
I might be missing something but it seems to me our genes are very much like our book of life which is written in every moment based on what's happening now. I feel like many of us have been able to theorize from what we see in nature today that evolution has to be determined by our present experience in nature as our environment. Things like seeing sea turtles running as fast as they can to get in the ocean as soon as they are hatched is but one example that new life often begins with an awareness of it's environment I'm going make a separate comment about how this video is further evidence to me personally that we are of one being experiencing many stories within a single story we call the Universe where energy is the substance of words in the micro and amino acids in the macro as letters which allow for our biology which comes from the Greek Bios meaning mode of life and logos meaning word.
Okay but now dig deeper… go past Greek and look at the Hebrew alphabet 😃
It would be fine to see more nuance in the professor's talk.
Membrane lipids are synthesized by proteins, packed into vesicle coats by protein-protein interactions and those vesicles are delivered to the cell membrane by protein motors. All those proteins are coded for by genes. Changes in those genes would translate into a particular phenotype of the cell membrane. So idk about all that "genes do not control the organism". If you take any of the Levin's talks, he never outright dismisses the genome's influence on life - rather, he finds clever ways to show that is not an only influence, and membrane that carries a charge can very much decide a cell's fate.
9:11 - shows a schoolbook pic of a cell. "Very complicated diagram".
11:40 - Experiments with mycoplasma bacteria show that injecting a DNA from one strain into a cell husk of another transforms the second strain into the first - wouldn't Denis' genome transform an egg husk into his zygote? I bet this is even more well-researched, I'm just too lazy to open Scholar at 1AM :B
Yeah thanks for commenting and sparing me time to write about the same...
Noble, in all fairness, would have to emphasize that the great majority of epigenetic controls have GENETIC BASIS...
The fact that it's not just proteins (but RNAs) doesn't necessarily change our "genecentric" views that much.
If the fanclub of Noble would even try to understand the complex new definition(s) of genes, they would know more about Dawkins position!
Of course, we don't know nearly enough about the implications of these "epigenes" on evolutionary processes. Period.
That doesn't mean that one can come up with a vague philosophy demanding the change of some (assumed) paradigms. Is Noble's proposal even coherent and consistent in it's details? Does it have sufficient details to call it a framework? If not, then he's just another "prophet"...
Maybe Dawkins is propagating too reductionist views (I'm not familiar to all the details). I've heard him on Sean Carroll's Mindscape, and this men is the epitome of philosophically narrow mindedness (I do not mean this as derogatory!) which is not that typical for most biological scientist. (Many of us are explicitly "plagued" by mystical ideas we try to gain control over).
Maybe Dawkins just tried too hard to counterbalance all the spiritually inspired misinformations about biology for too long, so that he doesn't even dare to venture into "muddy waters" of more holistic approaches (the majority of which should learn more about science before criticizing it and proposing new paradigms 😅)
I don't know much about the state of embryonic cloning efforts since the times of Dolly, when "my people" (I'm a molecular biologist) were bold enough to think that somatic cell content with some minor (?) tweakings is able to recreate a healthy new organism of such a complex species... 😅
If one takes into consideration that even a full sequence of the whole genome of such complex species wasn't available at the time: it's no wonder that epigenetic control was greatly ignored 😢
I'm afraid that given the audience here your comment will not get enough likes to not get lost in the crowd
Plus fatty acids are synthesized by enzymes, which are proteins coded by genes. And half of membrane is made of proteins coded by genes. And these proteins do virtually all functions of membranes.
@@Littleprinceleon Who are these people that are so impressed with the ignorant garbage this guys is spewing?
@@xcforce9067 this channel was giving platform to personalities involved in UAP research... 🤔 "research"... So one can guess, what kind of thinking governs lots of viewers here.
If one can't really distinguish between science and (bad) sci-fi and permanently projects own fictions onto the world: (s)he will end up in the thus created maze, trying to convince others that we are trapped/doomed 🤫
So for such people even the words of Noble can be a bit of fresh air of sanity. So, it's rather relative regards the human psyche. Perhaps even this video is step for them towards more rationality instead of just post hoc rationalizing their inner confusions
Thank you Curt for bringing another intellectual conversation to my screen. What I particularly like about this is discovering the science behind what was intuitively revealed to me in meditation years ago. Much appreciated!
The paradigm shift that’s occurring right now is tremendous. Cognition and memory without neurons, electromagnetic field research turning Harvard educated biologists panspsychist…but maybe the most incredible development is the possibility that the brain uses entangled particles to process information, and perhaps generate consciousness, faster than light. Why? The implication that consciousness arises at the level of the subatomic, for starters. And second, the particles in your brain are entangled with particles in other minds, stars, etc. Did I mention that StuartHammeroff recently discovered that anesthesia turns off consciousness by reversing the spin of electrons?
Most anaesthetics work differently from each other, but generally serve the same purpose - to numb the sensation of pain. This can be by blocked the transmission of ions across synaptic clefts, or by inhibiting the area of the brain that responds to pain entirely. However, there are none which I have heard of that reverse the spin of electrons. A notion like that would be taken down by any chemist, because every atom has an equal number of up and down spin electrons plus 1 for the odd number of protons. Thus, I would like to request your source as this could be the discovery that changes our perspective on all of chemistry, physics, and biology as we know it.
@@verony9519 Yeah, I realise this is how they were thought to woerk until a month ago. They actat the level of the electron. Google Hammeroff
Maybe I am wrong but nitrogen does not have equal spin up and down electrons. There are 3 ekectron with spin up let say. The same for elements d and f. And the number of protons doesn't count
@@emmb7688 hence why i said +1 for odd numbers of protons. The number of electrons always equals the number of protons, except in ions and a few other particles.
Someone better than me at chemistry please answer me this: can a chemical reaction change the spin of an electron?
I'm thrilled to be a member and have early access to this video. It's worth it!
It's not.
@@hlbjkhow dare you, now since you said that, you owe me $76 plus legal fees and a new Tesla.
@@hlbjkpeople don't understand all the costs. This case has some hidden cost, but I'm not sure what. Social division, maybe?
(Positive waves anyway.)
Econobot🤖
It would be interesting to hear what Michael Levin thinks. It’s clearly the same idea.
Michael was the one who mentioned I should interview Denis!
@@TheoriesofEverything you should also interview Jerry Coyne, who has answered Denis Noble's criticism of neodarwinism in the past
Incredibly interesting, I’ve had many many questions from watching wildlife and science programs and genetics at a very low level. However now this begins to shed some light and reason to my questions. I’ll have to watch the linked video, thanks and take care.
This talk was extremely interesting and refreshing. I hope the good Doctor’s ideas are given more credence, or at least greater acknowledgement.
Curt, have you ever had Bruce Lipton on? He would be such a wonderful guest for your podcast & for this series in particular! (Love this series btw 👏🏻😍)
Loved Denis' last episode. Looking forward to this one
WOW Awesome video, this is so interesting! Thank you!
If I may make a distinction, genes are not the *only blueprint for life. Levin explains this eloquently as well. Looking forward to this one!
@@polymathpark I love Levins work
I would argue the words and ontology are a bad metaphor. What is a blueprint? What is an antenna? Is it an imprecation? Or more of a reflection? Our language fails simply defining the Behavior.
@@TheIgnoramus interesting point!
The major distinction to me seems to be about BIOLOGICAL evolution of an already established (even if utterly simplistic by today's standards) CELLULAR organism - which requires deep understanding of molecular biology, systems biology, bioinformatics, regulatory networks...
... but not anywhere near to being able to describe how such a LIVING cell capable of Darwinian evolution can arise from prebiological system(s) - which probably requires grasping much more abstract concepts (from topology, AI - eg. gradient descents, thermodynamics - especially the nature of entropy, energy transfer - with emphases on membrane structures before proteins...) which we only began to join into somewhat coherent ideas:
So as long as we have so confused ideas about how a primitive cell can be assembled: having very speculative views on those constraints that were really relevant to the sustainability of a protocell without complex proteins.
One has to solve how the most basic form of ribosomal RNA arose synchronously with some rather limited (but very "creative") information coding and storage apparatus - which likely wasn't as focused on RNA as RNA world hypothesis suggested in the past... (Nowadays they try to incorporate simple "randomly" coded peptides as facilitators):
Layperson tend to think they know what randomness means 😅. Only if they had the slightest clues about probabilities...
Not speaking about the concept(s) of entropy...
How (if!) quantum processes affect the formation of stable cycles of chemical transformations...
Also, there are attempts at "creating" artificial cells of which current state I know little about.
Dawkins views seem to be rather mechanistic (which was and still is a very useful attitude for designing experiments that give us somewhat clear answers)...
On the other hand, Noble's ideas I'm less acquainted with but seem to be too vague:
Still, the core of his ideas ("purpose" arising from stochastic processes) is not that "spiritual" as many layperson seem to be fascinated about.
What are the major implications of Noble's emphasized ideas on the prax: eg. On the design of experiments ?
@@johnfakes1298how much do you know about molecular biology (in any area) outside Levin's work?
Is his approach really that much outstanding in view of the accumulated knowledge in evo-devo and embryology?
Or is he "simply" a great thinker with rhetoric skills and good intuition (and got lucky with the direction of research he is involved in) who is willing to market his approach much more than a handful of other researchers with comparable achievements? 🤔
Brilliant discussion.
Absolutely brilliant, thank you.
Glad you enjoyed it!
The work of Denis Noble is explosive far beyond science. It is of magnitude that is difficult to comprehend now, but I bet it is a breakthrough physicists can only dream about.
This video is about molecular biology, not physics.
I am so inspired by this! What types of controlled experiments can be done to properly done to discover what the control pathways for how organisms can edit DNA, and uncover their corresponding function!
This is a very insightful interview
Genes are not a blueprint for life but the are a blueprint.
People get stuck in extremely narrow definitions all the time and a blueprint does not mean it gives all the detailed information for something. Blueprints can be rough outlines with very little detail or can be very complex and detailed design which still do not include the fact that living people have to read those blueprints and use a wide variety of tools and materials to make what those blueprints are for, and even with the most detailed blueprints for something like a building, hat final building almost never exactly fits the blueprint.
The DNA is a long term memory storage which is not the only memory storage within the supercomputing swarm intelligence of a single germline cell. Those other forms of memory within a cell are also blueprints and in addition to the various blueprints (programming code is a better analogy than blueprint) the nanotech computing machinery of the cell is required to read, interpret, and use those blueprints. Further, in a multicellular organism there is some degree of interaction between the mother's cells and the developing zygote -> morula -> blastocyst -> embryo -> fetus. It is a complex system and the memory storage is like the memory storage of a computer, only one part of the whole complex system.
Very insightful. Related, I've been thinking of the same concepts at different scales. Aren't a country's laws its genome? It changes according to negative stressors. And we change it consciously (some people for the worst). It's the fundamental rule every individual is expected to follow, and if they don't we consider them problematic and they can be removed from the functional parts of the society; as proteins they'd be removed from the functional part of the cell.
@@V1brationCanine well, if we begin at the most simple life we know of, viruses, they have a swarm intelligence which uses RNA or DNA as memory. We are not necessarily sure if there are other forms of memory viruses use that we have not yet figured out. But, that swarm intelligence is the fundamental building block of the swarm intelligence of single cells.
Within a single cell there are very large numbers of intracellular vesicles required for the swarm intelligence of a single cell to work. These vesicles are like domesticated symbiotic viruses which have been a building block within the single cell.
Further, when dealing a swarm of single cells or a multicellular individual creature there are very large numbers of extracellular vesicles required for the swarm intelligence of either the swarm of single cells or the multicellular individual creature.
The type of swarm intelligence that exists within a swarm of individual cells is used within multicellular individual creatures.
Between groups of multicellular individual creatures exists a swarm intelligence, especially of the same species, but also with other species. In fact, such swarm intelligence arises between virus swarms, single celled individuals and swarms, and multicellular individuals and swarms.
Human intelligence is swarm intelligence. Our minds are not singular, but swarm minds, and this is for an individual. Each cell in the human body is a living conscious aware tiny swarm intelligence. Between two or more humans forms both conscious and subconscious swarm intelligences. Between humans and other life forms there exists swarm intelligence we barely understand.
With perhaps the most important human technology, complex spoken and written language, humans began extending part of their intelligence, part of their minds, out side of themselves into that technology. This has continued today where artificial intelligence is an extension of human minds.
What that means is that human civilization is a swarm intelligence which partly exists within humans and partly exists within our technology and actively interacts with all the life forms human civilization has any form of exchange of information with.
So...
This is a long winded way of saying...
Yes. Written laws are a type of blueprint/code which does not contain everything but contains a great deal of very important information for the swarm intelligence/mind of human civilization.
@@V1brationCanine hmm, my reply to you is not here. Must have been shadow banned.
@@MusingsFromTheJohn00 Gotta love auto censors =/
@@V1brationCanine that censoring seems to be random.
All intelligent life is swarm intelligence based and between all life forms which exchange information in any form there arises swarm intelligence. With humanity we have been extending our swarm intelligence outside of ourselves into our technology of language and then later into more and more of our technology, the leading edge of which is AI.
Our laws are a blueprint/code which is a significant part of our swarm intelligence, just as our DNA is.
I think it's time that Denis Noble or someone else describes what parts of the standard Darwinian theory can be dispelled or declared obsolete in the light of the latest discoveries in the science of Cell biology. So, for example, is the view proven wrong of life forms changing through unbroken incremental changes over hundreds of millions of years to give rise to speciation, as Dawkins has proposed?Secondly, is it time to revisit and reexamine Lamarckian theory of evolution?
Life is not a substance, it is infinite we really need to understand about this. It is only the body that passes, the life force within then moves on and goes back to it's source which is the infinite ocean of consciousness. One of the reasons we fail to understand is because we are so used to having this mind within our brain do all the work, that's what it does it can only deal with breaking things up into chunks, but the infinite cannot be broken up. We should understand that this mind is separate from us, when the body dies, it too will pass when the brain dies. If we say 'My' body, 'My' Eyes, what is it that is saying 'My'? We need to understand that first and foremost. There is the 'Owner' and the 'Owned' 'My body' I own the body, so who is 'I' That is something that has to be experienced, thinking will not be of any use, thought belongs to thought, not the reality, reality has to be experienced. There is that within us that experiences, it has nothing to do with our mind, it is that part of us that experiences joy. When we can grasp this a bit more we can start to understand that our mind only plays a part in certain things, not for everything, especially life, life is an experience and belongs to that part of us which is infinite, when we can be in touch with that there is elation and joy and peace, we can stop the cycle of searching with our mind, knowing that our mind is limited to the physical whereas our true self is not physical because it is infinite. Let the mind be still to allow the true experience of life to be felt, it's way way too simple for our very very complicated mind, this time the mind must 'Shut up' and be quiet for once.
Consciousness is the blueprint for Life..
Everything else is information..
👍
Not a chance
Define consciousness.
Define life.
Then we can have a discussion.
I've heard it explained that consciousness is fundamental, aligning with information theory, quantum mechanics (QM), and quantum field theory (QFT). We traditionally assume matter to be fundamental, but QM reveals matter as probabilistic, challenging its fundamental nature unless we accept reality as inherently probabilistic and seemingly random.
In QFT, matter no longer exists as in classical models. Instead, there are only interactions between fields, which give rise to the conscious perception of matter. Without consciousness or interaction, matter doesn't exist in a classical sense; it's merely a wave function. This ties to the QM measurement problem, where the wave function collapses upon observation, implying consciousness’s role in shaping reality. The Copenhagen interpretation even ties this collapse to the observer’s consciousness, suggesting that observation is crucial for defining reality.
Further, information theory posits the universe as an information processing system, aligning with the view that reality is about informational states rather than material substances. Physicist John Wheeler’s Participatory Anthropic Principle and Integrated Information Theory (IIT) support this, suggesting that observers (consciousness) are necessary to bring the universe into being, and that consciousness is an intrinsic property of any system capable of integrating information. Panpsychism extends this, asserting that consciousness is a universal feature of all matter, implying even the simplest particles possess some form of consciousness.
Thus, without consciousness or interaction, the material world as we perceive it wouldn't manifest. The classical concept of matter depends on our perception, shaped by consciousness and what you elected to believe when taught it school, or learned elsewhere.
Science is really telling us today that without consciousness, there would be no perception, hence no reality as we understand it.
It's up to you, if you believe it is reasonable to adopt the belief that the universe "exists" in the same way when consciousness isn't here to interact with it. I think that's the materialistic view. It assumes a material world even in the face of modern science saying it just doesn't exist.
Polarity seems to lie at bottom of everything in our reality. Ergo consciousness must have its other and is not everything. If consciousness is characterized as being without *necessary* limits, then its other would be characterized the hard physical limits of what can and cannot be, given particular parameters in a physicalized space where matter *matters*. A theory of everything lies here where consciousness can dream up anything but any idea must be-gets to be-put to the test under given parameters, which are the particular parameters of a given material universe (whereas another material universe could have other parameters and thus test other ideas that work for that universe as dreamed up by unlimited consciousness). 🤓🙏
Respected Sir,very politely I would like to submit that 1.A cell is a complex physical biological entity2.Where as a gene is biological information and a non physical entity .3What Dawkins tells in his books is viewed through the objective fact of evolution.4Replicator (genetic information) came first on planet earth both in time and history5 A cell itself is a complex entity and it was not created on the blink of an eye but gradually evolved and built by gene.
As a molecular biologist I gave you thumbs up, BUT:
How much do you/we know about the evolution (development) of the genetic coding system?
(Including and with special emphasis on the ribosomal RNA...)
If he could go back 1000 years and see all of his ancestors, he would change his mind.
I think, to steelman this case is relatively easy... but to take it as is, that is rather difficult.
As a non-biologist, the way I view it is that genes are a *collection* of blueprints. Which ones are expressed is determined by many factors outside of itself. I think the effective claim here is that it seems we have greatly understudied the mechanisms which select the active expressions. Maybe I am off the mark here.
Curt, you're doing a great job. Thanks for your work
Appreciate that
I love how he calls his book "My Little Book" and it reminds me of the passage in the book of revelation where an angel whose voice is like that of a lion tells John to eat a little book or scroll which taste like honey but is bitter to the belly. I always think that the angel was describing LSD, because it's like a little scroll or book, but it taste bitter and is sweet to the belly. Anyway, I like his *little book* and I'm reading it now! Sorry for the schizoid posting, but I thought that since these are theolocutions and I'm annonymous I could speakn freely.
What is theolocution?
As I wrote on Facebook in March 2021 with clarifying notes added in parenthesis : "About gene and evolution(as defined by small changes(due to natural selection propagated via a mechanism of hereditary transfer (which is genes as we understands it in biology today)) ultimately leading to a new offspring(species) that is different from the original parent); here is my question. As I understand it, genes are on the chromosomes as base pairs (some may be determined by complex relation between base pairs on many chromosomes but there are there on the chromosomes). This means that there are only a finite number of individuals possible. Then now suppose in a thought experiment (Gedanken), we produced all the individuals that a given totality of gene of a given species allows, then now if any two among that sample is combined to produce an offspring (allowed by the rules of the mechanism of hereditary transfer(DNA replication )), but that offspring should be already there in the old sample; so where is evolution? To me it seems that this genetic mechanism forfeits a global evolution; that is to say, this genetic algorithm (mechanism of DNA replication) does not allows a global evolution in a sense that if that mechanism is carried out in perfect precision THEN A GIVEN SPECIES IS A CLOSED SYSTEM, so it can not give rise to a new species as above Gedanken experiment shows. In a perfectly DNA replicating system, evolution can be looked as a local apparent change due to our not seeing the whole assemble of all possible allowed individuals by the whole gene of the species simultaneously."So the only way a new species can arise from an old one is via the imperfections in the hereditary transfer mechanism which is in line with Lamark's idea as pointed out in the discussion between Prof. Denis and Darwkin on iai channel.
since then I have been wanting to ask to my biologist friends this question............ If your are asked, what would be your top ten most important experiments (physical or gedanken (or thought experiment)) ever proposed and performed in biological sciences that has decisively settled the status ("proof or disproof") of a major theory in biology..............because I think my gedanken(thought) experimental proposition which showed the non-compatibility of evolution (via natural selection) and genetics to explain the origin of species via evolution(via natural selection) would be there in that top ten..................
@@dhargyal2012I am not a biologist and I have no axe to grind either way on this topic. Having said that, do you know how many possible humans will have to exist to carry out your gadanken? We have roughly 4.5million sites in human genome that can be individually different. Each site can have 4 possible entries leading to a whopping 4^4.5e6 individuals. To make you understand how big that number is, realize that there are an estimated 10^80 atoms in the universe!
dawkins scowls too much for me to believe that he's actually considering anyone else's position. He seems like someone who just really gets a kick out of telling people there's no god. He's obvoiously a very intelligent person, but i have to agree with Mr. Noble here that Dawkins seems to not understand many of the counterarguments he's been presented with. He seems to react with anger at anyone who disagrees with him and he's not great at hiding it.
You must remember Dawkins by his own admission is not intelligently designed. Enough said
@@gerardmoloney9979 haha got em!
Cult leaders don’t like “suppressives”
One of them has too restrained philosophical mindset, the other one is too boundless.
The majority of science about evolutionary processes is actually between the two.
So this whole debate is to a great extent artificial: aimed at laypersons who don't have enough knowledge to make an authentic view on the topic
Definitely ain't none a god that we believe we've discovered..., only human-made dieties in the building thus far.
Love the swipe at Dawkins. Always hated the "selfish gene" idea.
i haven't read the book but i'm just thinking of hermit crabs cooperating to change shells. the shellfish are not very selfish lol...also what about bees, where the workers will die to protect the queen without hesitation. watch any of those live eagle nest cams and you can see the mother AND the father taking turns to sit on the eggs, not moving even when there is a blizzard and they are covered in snow.
I take it neither of you read the book. Cooperation emerges from selfishness as cooperation is beneficial for all involved.
@@trucid2 well thats a pretty good guess that i didn't read the book considering my comment literally begins with "I haven't read the book". Anyway, I agree with Mr. Noble that applying the word "selfish" to a gene is silly. It seems like dawkins just want to assign objectively negative traits to the underworkings of nature as part of quixotic personal war against spirituality. He could just as easily have labled it "the brilliant gene" or "the cooperative gene" or "the incredibly effective gene" but labeling something as selfish and reducing all of it's successes to expressions of that selfishness just fits with dawkins' downer personality and gets more clicks on the internet.
@@yanwain9454 One of the themes central to the book is Dawkins being against group selection, which is where the selfish gene concept fits in.
@@yanwain9454 You are thinking of hermit crabs. Horseshoe crabs are very different.
Excellant video Curt. This video just raised my estimation of your podcast and work by a big notch :)
I’m glad you enjoyed it!
Fascinating and inspiring program, thank you for making this brilliant discovery known to the lay people like myself. The details were spoken in a scientific language I cannot fathom, but Noble is careful and gentle enough to convey the spirit of the new discovery - enough to set us free from the cage of thought that limits possibilities. I am beset with the mystery of a person "born again" by some spiritual action. It's intriguing to me. Am I at least getting warm in concluding that Noble is saying that there is new biological understanding that may make physical and molecular sense of the notion of RENEWAL that is quite apart from, and therefore not bound by previous orthodoxy? If so, then what are the parameters of these possibilities and how exactly can they be made to occur? A Part Two is begging Mate!!!
Thank you professor for explaining these complexities in easy English. Wow, this is very interesting! I think I'll buy his book.
This is a very good presentation.
There must be a tremendous amount of data that determines what we are and if it's not from the DNA then where is it from? How is that information stored?
If you look into evo-devo and embryology and population genetics etc. you'll find that Noble's proposals are already (at least implicitly) being incorporated into the scientific thinking but we aren't at the point where we could say pro or contra that some ancient versions of basic householding genes weren't sufficient to encode all the information necessary to make such PROTOCELLS that under then existing conditions were capable of biological evolution, although by today's standards we wouldn't call them more alive than the existing viruses.
We only began to join into somewhat coherent frameworks the more abstract concepts (from topology - structure/function relations of short peptides and RNA molecules, from AI - eg. the action of gradient descents on configuration spaces of biochemicals, from thermodynamics - especially the nature of entropy, or about energy transfer - with emphases on membrane structures before the advent of complex proteins, etc etc.
Noble may be arguing with Dawkins (who certainly doesn't represent the whole of biology or even genetics), but Noble seems to make scientifically not really substantiated suppositions: eg. It's true that there is a great redundancy in the majority of different parts of molecular networks, so a loss of individual gene can be overcome to a great extent, but it doesn't follow in the least that you can simultaneously knock out randomly any great number of the genes (talking about multicellular organisms).
Brilliant! Thanks, Curt. Prof Noble and Michael Levin?
So what is the blueprint if not genes? Does he not agree that mutations can cause phenotypic changes? I just clicked on the video, so sorry if they answer these questions in the video.
So basically we are not built to be competitive, we are educated in that way, and influenced by the entire anthropogenic system.
Yes, anthropologic SOCIAL SYSTEMS , Based on a certain relationships people find theselves in , then political systems corresponding to those production relations to meet basic needs of life, then culture, art and morality corresponding to that all ....
Competition has it's uses, but they should take a back seat to cooperation.
But several hundred years of capitalist brainwashing would have us believe otherwise
With all due regards, nobody or no scientist ever said that GENES are blueprint of life. It was always said that DNA is blueprint of life. When we say DNA it also includes a lot of non-gene elements which we are now discovering them to be regulatory in nature.
Best channel on the internet
Penrose, Levin, and Noble are right. There are degrees of mind all the way from the prokaryote to the human. All that's real is our emotions and thoughts (spiritualists have always known this) and it's those that drive evolution. Once the patterns that only chemical molecules can produce are sufficiently complex, a protomind results.
Stress causes DNA changes (consciously observable or otherwise) and this is directly observable in people with severe childhood trauma; it can be further seen when they learn to change their thoughts in order to change their feelings and body.
Consider the following: if a higher life form (perhaps with a higher spacial dimension) viewed us through a microscope, wouldn't all they see likewise be proteins? Like we observe the extremely small as a sort of 2D perspective in first person, the higher being would observe a 3D perspective which is also 'flat' to them.
Once we further expand all these ideas we will find the 'cures' for Parkinson's, cancers, etc. I believe it's all bioelectrical and due to stress or perturbation. Related, people who are not resistant to perturbation, in other words sensitive, are more susceptible to these stressors and so these conditions.
This makes me so happy that you have all the heros together.
My channel is teaching these as we work through different fields
Fantastic lecture, thank you both.
I totally agree with Prof Denis Noble. Gene is the blue print of physical body. Life is not the body. Life require a body for sure. But, there is no permanent glue between life and body. Life can leave the body (death). We need a completely different type of knowledge to experience the life and it cannot be observed through physical process or tool.
Your show is a *high-quality production*
Hello 💞
Thank you very much for explaining and sharing.🤗
Absolutely brilliant and concisely explained-thank you
Denis, please have your books made into audio versions.
Excellent talk, intelligent and full of logic
Interesting! The call for a multifactorial perspective in the place of a reductionist one is the most important takeaway. And the need to look into the functional networks which enable the building blocks to function in the first place!
Hey Curt, have you looked into the work of Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai, an MIT PhD in systems biology? A podcast with him would be highly appreciated by your audience.
I find it amazing how intelligent people can talk about and describe everything inside a room (a subject) but bc of intellectual bias (derived from unchecked dogmas) make them completely ignore the elephant in the room. One can't never get the answer until one ditches Anthropocentrism. When he says at the end there "to rescue nature" he simply confirms his anthropocentric bias. The problem in all of science, past, present and future is always the same the political/philosophical bias of every group of scientists. We can not develop a clear view of how things actually work with muddy glasses. We either understand how Anthropocentrism is preventing humanity from seeing things for what they are, or we will continue being a disease on this planet. Physiology, Sociology, Phylosophy and Theology are studying the exact same thing just from different angles. The same truth solves all their problems at once.
See Prossor Rupert Sheldrakes studies. Lifetime of solid research that is helping fracture the distortions we've been told...
Amazing. Makes a lot of sense. So: 1) Do we have a descriptive language for a cell, i.e. can we indeed describe to a level where we can replicate a mother's egg cell at the time of conception? 2) Would a cell description as a static snapshot be sufficient or are there processes that differ between cells and need to be captured (diff between a video and a still), 3) Is the combination of the cell description and the DNA sufficient or are there additional factors, e.g. chemical compositions outside the cell? Further, it does sound like the cell is the Architect necessary to build something, but the DNA could indeed be the Blueprint, but without an actor (the Architect) it would just be dead matter - so DNA is the git repository that Life uses would be a more apt description? :)
Here's an example of what Einstein called spooky action at a distance. I saw on the news a picture of a little black girl watching Kamala Harris accept the nomination for President. It took me a minute for it to come to me what the picture was saying and I cried a bit, partly for missing it. I stopped and wrote down what it meant to me beyond what I had already missed. "We recognize that the girl's life is greatly influenced from what she sees." We see just enough to know she is a black girl and from that we can extrapolate what this moment in time represents as the girl learning to believe what is possible for herself which she had never seen before, no one has. The girl is the template consisting of many changeable variables which adjust spontaneously and inevitably based solely on environment. Each spontaneous change also alters our view of our environment. What we experience is determined by what we experience and the means by which we experience it through our senses based on an ever changing template. I'm just saying, we didn't just fall out of a coconut tree. This is the reason for the golden rule. This is why we should love our enemies as ourselves. Plainly, every thing that makes us different from one another can only be because of the one "thing" which is the same in each of us as our being, the life of every body.
This makes so much sense and ties in with other theories about health and sickness.
30:29 By Penrose and Hameroff's work on Orch OR we also know the tubulin can communicate via quantum entanglement and "superposition collapse" so the communication is not only instantaneous, it is also retro-causal!!
I have long argued that protein coding is not process instructions, which are absolutely required for life.
That's a great title quote.
- We finally managed to study the DNA in the nucleus which is the size of a golf ball!
- Nice. Now you have to study all the routes at the scale of an entire country.
One of the most exciting innovative idea, thanks Kurt!
Dawkins also tells that evolution is about differential survival of self replicating entities called genes.We should not forget that DNA is the hardware and gene is the software.Genetic information is potentially immortal through its ability to make its reproductive copies.Evolution is about change in gene frequencies in evolutionary time.
But still you are talking about BIOLOGICAL evolution...
...but how did the PROTOCELLS arise?
Do we have anything resembling a consensus on those bio-chemico-physical processes that were necessarily involved in the construction of protocells before the advent of complex proteins?
I've heard a bit (a lot in laymen's standards) about different proposals but those doesn't seem to be integrable into a single consistent framework even in the broadest terms.
But again I'm familiar only with particular approaches so maybe in the last decade there are more integrative ones
It is a relief that this gentleman does not subscribe to what I call the "Tommy Cooper" theory of gene expression, i.e. "just like that".
Nobel by name and Nobel by nature. A true nobleman.
The stability of the cellular physiological system is very important here I think. By stability I mean thermodynamical stability, since our cells and our body in general is a thermodynamically open system ,the energy we receive is being used to maintain the entropy charecterestics of a cell or the body as low as possible with minimum disorders.
That is since we are also an open system to the surrounding environment ,inputs from the surroundings to our cellular system will always tend to increase it's entropy charecterestics,but luckily for us years and years of complex evolution helped our cells with a great machinery to counter it by using energy to produce protiens that are supportive to maintain the low entropy,
So When this balance is broken system collapses
I think the agency of the system as a whole should mentioned as the controller, which includes not only genes and proteins but also all of a cell's or organisms constituents as functional parts. But who plays the major role? the weight goes with the proteins definitely.
In computer systems you have layers of complexity. The CPU hardware, microcode, CPU code set, firmware, operating system, Java Virtual Machine, Java application implementing a domain specific language, and the final control code written in this domain specific language. Or even more layers with languages embedded into each other. Such complex dependency stacks are the normal way to manage complexity. Biological life might have something similar for managing complexity....
We also have such layers in telco networks as described by ITU-T G.805 and G.809.
The layering principle is a generic way of organizing complex systems. In that perspective, DNA might be somewhere in the middle of the stack, not even close to the top.
i listened with my mouth open. Salute.
Dont use 23 and me for medical advice
You know, I think I will use genetic information from popular gene sequencer 23 and Me (and also give up my medical data!) to make medical decision.
You know, I think I will use genetic information from popular gene sequencer 23 and Me (and also give up my medical data!) to make medical decision.
Amazing! Thank you, Curt, for doing this interview
Classical and Modern physics says:
0D (non-natural, indivisible) = not fundamental
1D-4D (natural, divisible) = fundamental
Can someone please tell me how stuff that can be divided further (divisible) is fundamental? And stuff that can't be divided further (indivisible) is somehow not fundamental?
I’m most impressed by the interviewers questions, the rest is mostly semantics with occasional twists towards new ideas.
The association between genes and physical traits/development is well established for many decades. That DNA is written to by living cells is also well known.
Guy seems to be an unbelievable quack and fighting windmills from 30 years ago…
Sadly the knowledge of general audience is stuck in times even before those thirty plus years, so no wonder they think that Noble's "rebel" ideas have that much novelty and that they are willfully ignored...
Always this conspiratorial appeal to the shortcomings of mainstream, which mainly serves to distract from those "mainstream" voices that properly criticise these proposed "new" ways of thinking.
It so easy to propose new ways of looking at things in such broad terms as Noble speaks about but what are the evidences that clearly support his stance in more details?
How should experiments and/or their evaluation be changed according to his proposal(s)?
Sorry but even I could "philosophise" in ways I hear him on YT videos
@@Littleprinceleon There is an epidemic of „scientists“ who should switch career to philosophy,, given their propensity to occupy themselves with unfalsifiyable ideas.
@@pyalot honestly, science a little bit weird. We cant make "new invention" every day. But people need PhD for everything and "new invention" is a must. Science at very high level now, mostly, philosophical argument with no real science breakthrough at all. The finest example is, do vaccine really needed or just a broad day light robbery from pharmaceutical industry? Science Expert CANT SOLVE THAT SIMPLE QUESTION. All we have is, a political answer type from the self proclaimed, scientist. PATHETIC.
It's, for some reason, the way some older scientist go. Especially if they were known experts on their field. At some point they have too much time on their hand, start to think about x, y, z and believe they have more insight into the topic than the actual researcher of that topic. Biology is a broad field and if you are an expert of one system it doesn't make you an expert on the other. For example, a bacteriologist vs a virologist. And in his case, the topics are even farther apart.
Basically, they see connections where there are none, selectively consume information that confirms their view, ignore information that is against their view or ridicule it as mAiNsTreaM. Then they find a layman audience that believes their schwurbel to 100% and we have this.
There was a former well accepted physicist who went down that spiral, claiming that vitamin c can solve all problems. Dawkins is also one contender, dude is only citing his own works in his books.
Thoughts are not facts, philosophising about something doesn't make it a fact, and philosophy in itself as a concept of logic to in/validate the hypotheses made. But that gets hardly instrumentalised in their thought processes anyway.
Noble totally misunderstands Richard Dawkins "selfish gene". Noble appears to be saying evolution is driven by epigenetics. It doesn't really take much thought to realize that can't be. I mean, it may be possible, but it wouldn't be good for the organism. I do find it interesting how many people, some of them very intelligent, have a hard time accepting evolution by natural selection. For a real understanding of "The Selfish Gene", I suggest people read it, rather than get it second hand. It is a seminal work.
Especially since the majority of epigenetic processes have genetic basis 😊
You do realise the Selfish Gene concludes with a note of how genetics alone cannot explain evolution?
This also lead to Susan Blackmore have here moment with memetics.
@@Littleprinceleonhammer, anvil
@@JLT9150 Having read "The Selfish Gene" a number of times, I don't remember that it concluded with anything other than evolution by natural selection. Perhaps you could refresh my memory.
@@JLT9150 Well, I can thank you for this. I went back to my copy of "The Selfish Gene" to re-read the final chapter. After doing so, I can only conclude you have read some other book with the same name. Either that, or you have taken someone else's word for what it says. Dawkins not only made the gene the central element of evolution, but he went even further. He posited organisms (like plants and animals, people, etc.) as being the devices genes used to preserve themselves. He examines all of nature in light of the centrality of the gene.
at 21'59', I cannot find the British medical journal paper titled 'The genome does not predict cardiovascular diseases cancer'. Can Denis Noble gives me the link? Thanks.
Well said !
Im with you on your side all the way .
super accessible talk. I only have grade 12 biology, and was able to follow with no problems.
Isn't the cell membrane growth during mitosis mediated by structures that are built through protein synthesis? So after fertilization, the shared DNA is controlling the addition of the cell wall as it divides. How does that mean that DNA isn't the basis?
The DNA helical tree is the present for anyone climbing it. Like the proverbial Indian rope trick, all of us are climbing one all the time. No one knows where one is headed except that it peters out into nowhere at death.
Encouraging -- my Mom was right, attitude is powerful.
Prayer affects attitude, therefore prayer is powerful.
I just watched up to 9:30 and as a computer programmer, a thought occurred to me, that the genome is like a programming library, while the main code or the main process is in the cell itself mb in the form of RNAs.
So yes, i guess the main paradigm misslead us to think of DNA as a program but it's not, it's a receipe to build proteins, that's all there is to it, so there is no fixed program life.
this brings us back to the game of life thing, simple rules that produce complex behavior when there is thousands of invidual cells involved.
EXCELLENT INFORMATION.
You can try to run from Denis Noble and his ideas but you can't escape.
Awesome!
Genes are the center of all life. I don’t like how some scientists overamplify the idea of the epigenome and cell physiology. They are important too, but all of them exist to serve their genes. Think about how much we can alter lifeforms by just modifying genes-almost everything. Genes might not predict diseases in the later stages of the human lifespan, but that doesn’t mean gene-centric biology is wrong.
Hamburger meat is at the center of a hamburger. But where do the cow, the farmer, the farm, the earth, and the sun fit in? They're all part of the hamburger fruition process.
Similarly, saying genes are at the center of life ignores the evolutionary environments and macro processes like competition, survival, and reproduction whuch causes the fruition of life. As Carl Sagan pointed out, to create an apple pie from scratch, you need to create the universe first. Likewise, to create a life form from genes, you need an appropriate environment. Not so much as a universe but at least a fitting environment which would juat be a small universe.
With genes, but no appropriate environment, life is not possible. Prove it to yourself by trying to grow a human embryo in the abyss of deep space. Genes are there, but life is nowhere, so how can genes be the center of life? It's so simple but we gloss over reality as it exists.
Genes can be seen as the center of life in our imagination, but they are part of a much longer process. They should barely be called a "thing," as they are constantly changing and mutating by design. Genes are interwoven with their environment, evolving over time, and are inseparable from the broader context of life’s processes.
Some things are simply ideas and have nothing to do with what we see. "Genes are the center of life" is one of those ideas, and so is the inherently existing apple pie that exists without a universe.
However, it is useful to consider genes the center of life for various experimental intrepretations as well as philosophical discussions.
They so so obviously not, though.
For example, some might say, ‘Memes don’t have any power to replicate themselves; it is all done by humans and social networks.’ They argue, ‘Humans can alter memes whatever they want!’ But we all know that individual efforts to replicate a meme are not as important as the content of the meme itself (in the context of surrounding culture).
Except in planaria. Michael Levin has showed that by changing their bioelectrical state and not their genome, he can make them reproduce with different numbers of heads, etc.
Perhaps until now the role of gene editing systems was under appreciated..we don’t go around thinking how we can live our lives in such a way as to improve our genes for our offspring’s benefit and in sport you’ve either got the genes or you don’t..of course the genes are central but the idea that we can biologically/physiologically modify them is a new paradigm..
You say that "all of them exist to serve their genes". But as Noble points out, DNA is a dead molecule. How can it control behaviour? The idea that dna is used and controlled by living things in order to sustain life is much more likely.
Only a few minutes in to this, I have heard Prof Noble's theory before - this will be good.
It also occurs to me how this challenges the current 'gene therapy' doctrine that is driving health treatments.
You should invite Randy Gallistel on, I think a lot of your viewers would be heavily impressed by his work! David Glanzmann as well.
Any proposal on specific videos with these people?
@@Littleprinceleon Randy is a powerhouse in the history of cognitive science and he has been arguing for well over 2 decades now that if we want to find the (or any) mechanism for memory storage, we need to apply what we've learned about memory over the past century in computer science. He has a book co-authored with Richard King called "Memory and the Computational Brain" which would be a great topic of discussion for a ToE episode.
David Glanzman is a researcher who has soundly demonstrated that at least some types of memory are stored within nucleic acids, at least within the species Aplasia. There's another researcher named Hesslow whose lab has demonstrated similarly that similar types of "behavioral" memory are also stored sub-cellularly. In particular, his lab has demonstrated that the timing of the puff-blink response in rabbits is stored within a singular purkinje cell in the cerebellum. I suggested Glanzman instead of Hesslow because, while Gallistel has referenced the results of both in support of his general view on memory, Glanzman seems to already have shown interest in appearing in podcasts. He has appeared on some smaller channels I've seen, and he's pretty well spoken. You should check them both out!
@@Littleprinceleon They are both well respected researchers who are challenging the paradigm of how computational neuroscience is currently conceptualized. Gallistel has a very interesting book called "Memory and the Computational Brain" and Glanzman has published researching demonstrating that certain types of memory are stored in sub-cellular mechanisms of neurons (as opposed to synaptic connections). They both have already appeared on many other neuroscience podcasts here in RUclips if you want to hear more from them. For example:
Gallistel: ruclips.net/video/D4Fbfs0MEBk/видео.html
Glanzman: ruclips.net/video/ErLkuXw-qSg/видео.html
They are both well respected researchers who are challenging the paradigm of how computational neuroscience is currently conceptualized. Gallistel has a very interesting book called "Memory and the Computational Brain" and Glanzman has published research with results demonstrating that certain types of memory are stored in sub-cellular mechanisms of neurons (as opposed to synaptic connections). So has Hesslow with eye-blink responses in rabbits, which is arguably more important given they are much closer to humans in terms of ontogony, but he doesn't seem to do podcasts, and Glanzman is certainly well spoken enough to get the point across anyway. Him and Gallistel both have already appeared on many other neuroscience podcasts here in RUclips if you want to hear more from them.
Gallistel: ruclips.net/video/D4Fbfs0MEBk/видео.html
Glanzman: ruclips.net/video/ErLkuXw-qSg/видео.html
@@jeewillikers thanks... I'll try to write feedback... I hope these two videos are showcasing: there's lot's I like to look after (but time and cognitive capacity wise I tend to dismiss even interesting approaches.
Anyway, thank for suggestions...
Fascinating.
The genetic code is the blueprint for life. It can be changed and read differently, but the central dogma of molecular biology is correct. Nobody disputes the cell and external environment has feedback on the genome.
Exactly... the idea of natural selection is that the environment has a HUGE influence over the genome. The genome would not exist without environmental influence. OF COURSE the genome changes, that doesn't make it any less of a blueprint for every single protein that makes up your body.
Even the simplest of the microorganisms are subject to random mutations across their lifespan, nobody was denying that.
I'd argue, even the capacity some organisms have to raise/lower their protection against mutation IS part of that genetic blueprint, and if we have that capacity is because it was naturally selected through our evolutive history. It's likely that facilitating mutaton under stressing situations where we might need to adapt quicker to changing circumstances was actually a trait that helped the survival of some of our ancestry