Richard Dawkins and long-time rival Denis Noble go head to head on the selfish gene | Who is right?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 20 июл 2024
- Biologist Denis Noble and evolutionist Richard Dawkins clash over the selfish gene.
This excerpt was taken from Dawkins re-examined, featuring Richard Dawkins and Denis Noble. Güneş Taylor hosts.
00:00 Richard Dawkins pitches his stance on evolution and the selfish gene
01:50 Denis Noble challenges Dawkins on the process of evolution
03:55 Richard Dawkins responds
Watch the full debate at iai.tv/video/the-gene-machine...
#IsTheSelfishGeneReal #CausalChangeInEvolution #IsDawkinsRight
Denis Noble is an Oxford Professor and one of the pioneers of Systems Biology. He developed the first viable mathematical model of the working heart in 1960.
Richard Dawkins is a British evolutionary biologist and author. He is an emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford and was Professor for Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford from 1995 to 2008. An atheist, he is well known for his criticism of creationism and intelligent design.
To discover more talks, debates, interviews and academies with the world's leading speakers visit iai.tv/subscribe?Y...
The Institute of Art and Ideas features videos and articles from cutting edge thinkers discussing the ideas that are shaping the world, from metaphysics to string theory, technology to democracy, aesthetics to genetics. Subscribe today!
For debates and talks: iai.tv
For articles: iai.tv/articles
For courses: iai.tv/iai-academy/courses
Do you think Dawkins or Noble are right in their idea of evolution? Let us know in the comments below!
To watch the full debate, visit iai.tv/video/the-gene-machine?RUclips&+comment
No.
If looking at evolution is a thing, then we still have fruit picking fingers, salivating lemons, shared altruistic birth behaviour of equality and companionship ‘democratic relationship’ and with this in mind, we catapult young family members as these two, into the void of individualism and self importance without a mother figure of reason.
How can industrial individualism with a climate failing in our knowledge, be evolutionary?
More excuses than common sense.
The selfish gene view or other adaptationist/ultra-Darwinian views have been obsolete since long ago. There are lots of heritable information and information that interacts with selective pressure other than some discrete sequences of gene.
Can't I think both are wrong?
There was a time in history when intelligence mattered, the pay to learn model is both corrupt in capture and corrupt in opinion of no true debate.
The education structure of debate is ‘top down’, not side by side, so in this way, every dishonesty can rarely be challenged by the education of individualism. Ie, stage theory is bullshit theory as we careen off and out of existence.
Art is the expression of science, the two subjects missing from education.
Both are right. Who is right among two agriculture engineers when one says last night's freeze will kill this year's crop, and the other says that last year's seeds are good to plant next year?
Excellent the way these two people accept each other's statements and discuss the outcomes from different points of view. No talking over each other, no rubbishing the opposing view. How refreshing.
That’s because their both gentleman and have been doing these debates in higher education platforms for decades. A very different atmosphere and ambience from the modern RUclips atheism vs theism type debates.
But one is right and the other is wrong. Or at least, in many ways, mistaken.
@@vidfreak56 “Right” and “wrong” are not always such completely dichotomous polarities.
There are degrees of “rightness” and “wrongness” in most things.
Of course, murder is capital W wrong. Rescuing a kitten from a burning tree is capital R right. But most things in reality don’t fall so easily into such categorical simplicity.
It's so refreshing to listen to educated people debate objectively and respectfully. It's a fertile ground for growth and understanding. So different from the political and social-media environment.
the problem is Dawkins is he kind of that person you describe, he clearly thrives off of media attention talking endlessly about a subject that anyone who has a brain figured out in middle or high school while never talking about the real issue being economics. Dawkins is NOT a good faith actor outside of a setting like this, I think he is acting in good faith here only cuz he can't do his normal favorite subject which is indirectly simping for British and American imperialism and capitalism
@@mikesmollin2043 Ayye, a comrade! Yeah, Dawkins may have done some good in criticising religion etc., but otherwise, he's just lib-brained.
@@mikesmollin2043 Is there a book of his that "indirectly" promotes imperialism and capitalism?
I remember him in an interview using the term "gentleman scientist" to describe Darwin. It struck me odd that he seemed so gleeful about inherited wealth. I had thought social Darwinism had peaked in the 20s.
@@edwardmitchell6581 No book, i did not say that, i meant his book regarding science became obsolete so he goes around on talk shows complaining about Islam which has the same effect of simping for imperialism unless you talk about bad economics situations increasing religious fervor, instead of remaining important by working in evolutionary biology cuz he has nothing to offer. He never points out that the USA messes these places up, and he is talking to the masses like the people he wants to reach have electricity and internet to even be able to even know who he is, he is a jack ass
@@mikesmollin2043wrong!
Kudos to Noble. Never heard of him, and at first look I was querying whether he was alive or not, and then he opened his mouth and spoke with more lucidity and clarity than most people a half or a quarter of his age. As I said... kudos.
does that make him right?
@@cosmicdebris2223 I'm not so concerned about that. I like ideas and perspectives.
Squawkiins is clearly slowing down - I have been laughing at his books since I read page one of the preface to 'The Selfish Gene' back around 1980. He actually directly, not metaphorically, likens human beings to robots - over and over, not by accident, he labours the point. But the amusing question occurred to me back then, 'Why did the Dawkins bot write a book for this bot - or any other bot? And who programmed him? God maybe?'
@@MyMy-tv7fd You obviously have some issues. Best of luck.
@@johannuys7914 lol why insult him instead of answer his question and refute him?
It's just nice to see two men having a respectable discussion. No ad-hominem, no journalistic agendas.
And no 'As a...' openers!
Both have journalistic agendas, they literally publish books and papers.
I have no idea what they’re talking about but I love it
You just know that both of these two gentlemen are prepared to change their minds when presented with facts. If only everyone behaved this way.
I'm not so sure. Careers and reputations sometimes rest on these things.
@@StephenSeabird Οn the contrary, careers are based on fact assessment. Had it been otherwise, science would have been stuck in the Dark Ages.
@@washcloud you dont seem to know reality....most of us hide our bias, and the other sides good points....
@@philipbuckley759 Αnd you don't seem to know career scientists. Who have nothing to do with most "of you".
@@washcloud"Careers are based on fact assessment" - spoken like somebody who's never worked in academic institutions. Utter nonsense🤣🤦♂️
I was present at this debate and it was the most impressive debate I have ever had the pleasure to witness - Professors Dawkins and Noble were eloquent, respectful, clear in their positions and at times humorous. I agreed with Professor Dawkins’s position….but thought that he lost the debate, which is a rarity.
I thought both were great but agreed with Noble at the end.
@@tajzikria5307 I understand Noble’s point. The effect he’s pointing to wouldn’t be noticeable evolutionarily unless there were over time a reduction in the reproduction rate of in this instance humans. How does that show that genes aren’t the sole unit of evolution?
Dawkins is a brilliant and kind man I highly respect but sometimes a good ole Hitch Slap is necessary. Sometimes I imagine an army of Christopher Hitchens clones just taking out each religion with only their witty Hitch slaps.
Honestly, there's no debate here. Basically, each nucleotide has its own phenotypic effect. Unfortunately, this effect is very difficult to describe because it's so heavily dependent on all the other nucleotides. As a result, the nucleotide-centric viewpoint produces a genotype-phenotype map that's far too complicated to really be practical. So in practice, you try to simplify. A good way to do this is by moving to a gene-centric viewpoint. This trick reduces the complexity of the genotype-phenotype map, but at the end of the day, it's an oversimplification, and it'll miss certain phenomena. For example, once you move emphasis from nucleotides to entire genes, the resulting model will have trouble seeing the potential phenotypic effects of a gene jumping from one part of a chromosome to another portion of the same chromosome. That's fine; every oversimplification is going to have some kind of cost, and that's completely okay, because science progresses by working out which simplifications are "largely worth it" and which simplifications are "largely not". In any event, Denis Noble's point is that even once you make the gene-centric simplification, there's still further complexities and non-linearities in the resulting genotype-phenotype map. Personally, I don't think this really undermines Dawkin's point, it just highlights the complexity that remains even once certain simplifications that are built into Dawkin's espoused viewpoint are utilized.
I would pin this comment at the top if I could.
@@TheAlchaemist Thanks. Nice to get some positive feedback once in a while, ahaha :)
Such an excellent summary. Really helpful reading the drawbacks that come with different levels of specificity in a model. Thanks!
@@socraticmathtutor1869 You nailed it! 👍
Imagine if all debates were this calm, collected and concise. Amazing
Most are, you just watch the ones that aren't.
@@Michael-mh2tw It sure feels like nowadays it is harder to find ones like this
When religion or politics are part of the discussion reason, logic, and facts get sidestepped by instinctual feelings.
Fully agree, I find for some reason even myself in those types of conversations that it is easier to become uncomfortable or emotional, very odd @@bobs182
Nothing to lose here though.
Two too old men discussing truths of life with zeal, taking notes and accepting each other's points of view because knowledge is the only guiding light not their egos, this video made me emotional deep down. My respect for both.
That's exactly the same way I began feeling after just watching for a few minutes. These guys are awesome and a pleasure to listen to.
Here, Richard Dawkins displays respect for Dr. Noble. In other debates DAWKINS is RUDE, dismissive, reactionary, displaying Darwinian Religious fanatical zeal towards anyone who disagree with random mutations/natural selection, gene determinism as to why we’re here.
The immense complexity of cellular metabolism, cell communication, need for directive information/planning, evidence of engineering far beyond existing human capability, supposedly occurring by catch-all terms like “self-organization” and “emergence” are a fairy tale.
Photosynthetic processes capturing a photon of light--occurring purposefully-- in fempto-seconds, with 100 percent accuracy, in every leaf of a tree which grew from a seed should humble any intellectual into realizing “we….don’t….know” what LIFE is, or how it got here.
How are they accepting each others points?
@reallynow6276 You can see it in their body language. Also, both were respectful and listened to the others' points without interrupting. Not to sound mean, pay attention to how they speak and interact with eachother.
It seems clear, even from Dawkins' final contribution, that they were speaking of two different functions. Therefore, Dawkins was correct in regard to evolution but he conceded that Noble was correct at the smaller, more localised level of embryology. That is what intelligent, fact focussed people do. They do not stand on principle.
What I find fascinating is that we are still learning about the complex functions of DNA and genes, even though huge strides have already been made.
of course we're still learning about complex functions of dna and genes, what trite.
Dawkins has not done any research or research worth anything in almost 40 years, to the point he can't even comment on Epigenetics. Noble is a far more prolific researcher.
I wonder how the complex functions of DNA came to be
@@zaraki942 there's clearly intelligence behind it
@@TheLuminousOne Yeah it’s literally an engineering system, like who or what made these functions as such? I saw a visual about information increasing in the genome and there’s literally no reason why it just seems wired to do so and there’s a long path it takes doing different things. I think atheists are disingenuous to say it’s reasonable this just came by itself because it’s so absurd. These atoms have no will brain intelligence nothing but their innate properties they can’t act upon without an external agent, yet they somehow gave us not just DNA but a brain heart lungs kidneys? How? It’s a miracle when you think deeply about it but we’re so close to ourselves we don’t realize it.
What explanation do they usually have? They believes that molecules turned into a fish that grew legs, walked out of the water, turned into a cow, that then walked back into the water, lost its legs and turned into a whale.
That still doesn’t explain the ridiculously complex inside of ourselves (there’s even more, a cell. It’s described by Hoyle who’s an evolutionist it forming by chance and emerging into higher life forms is comparable to the chance a tornado sweeping through a junk yard assembles a Boeing 747). The irony is they have more faith than us with their explanation because it’s conjecture without any intelligence and even reasonability
They are both right as they are talking about two different things
Denis Noble actually looks like a professor, if I had to say what a typical professor looks like he is perfect, even his voice.
I think Denis wins the 'Looking like a professor' part of this argument hands down.
Reading The Selfish Gener was like a bomb going off in my head. I realised how life evolved, and how life started. I could never understand how life could just appear, but his chapter Selfish Replicators changed everything for me. I now teach science, and it was likely due to that one chapter.
Do tell how life could start on its own. First off, Richard believes "literally nothing" created the universe. His words. Can you tell how we even got the universe? Do you know basic science before you teach science?
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2block What has the universe beginning got to do with how life started?
@@mdaniels6311 first you need a universe that has ingredients. There is a sequence to things. Saying it just all came from "literally nothing" shows how flippant a person is with all that follows.
@@2fast2block I agree. For life to start, there needs to be a lot of matter in the universe. But it's there.
Read the book 'Darwin's Doubt' - it's much better than the Selfish Gene and gives you more insight into evolution.
Really nice talk! As a scientist who has been working on causality for many years, I think Richard may have to relook at the interpretation of association as causality. Judea Pearl has shown in his "The Book of Why" that this should not be the case. Causation would imply correlation; but correlation does not imply causation. A very important reason for this is that causation is NOT merely a statistical relation, but is fundamentally a physical notion. This is also why we are moving from mere causal inferences (which are mainly statistical) to more Physics-based formalisms like entropy-based causation for information flow assessments(in the Shannon sense). On that point, I think Denis makes a very sound argument. Globally averaged causation may look like correlations(this is why Richard's evolutionary argument makes sense), but they are fundamentally not statistical associations. I have really enjoyed this talk. Thanks for sharing.
Can't quite put my finger on it but watching this reminds of lovely thick curtains that people used to hang on their windows in the 70s. It's a mystery to me.
These are the true role models in life.
It's so refreshing to hear two brilliant men who disagree so much still able to have a civil argument..
Most arguments are civil today. Stop watching bullshit, maybe you'll start to find 'civil' debates instead.
@Michael-mh2tw obviously not with you though.
@@Michael-mh2twlmao my dude you are still hyped up on whatever you have been watching recently because that was not civil
All debates should be like this
At this point, it's not who's right or wrong, but it's a task that the biology community has to solve in the future. hard-line Darwinist's position in evolutionary studies such as psychology as well as biology has narrowed. cell biology and molecular biology have begun to accumulate a lot of research data on the expression of acquired traits and external intervention. The same goes for epigenetics, which is based on that. I think the hard-line Darwinists also need to take a revisionist view in these. Science can always change, and the possibilities should always be open.
Absolutely! All that matters is that we don’t stay stuck in the wrong understanding.
Forward!! 😊👍🥁
i dont who is right. but neo darwinists like dawkins are clearly wrong.
I understand you except for the part about "external intervention." What do you mean by it and what does that research data say?
I want to see the entire debate, not just this clip.
The link is at the top
You will need to pay for at least one month subscription! It's not much.
RUclips it
I listened to The Whole debate without subscribing
Denis Noble, is the spitting image of young Mr. Grace, on “Are you being served”
To me I think he is more like Paul Whitehouse.
Wow! Now you've said it I can see exactly what you mean! To be fair to Mr Noble, he looks a bit younger than 'Young Mr Grace'! 😄
C’mon, everyone knows that Denis Noble is the first Dr Who (William Hartnell)…
Dawkins has so much life in him I’m so, so glad to be able to say.
In fact, that man has been dead for a long time. He who fights against God who is resurrection and life has no life in him. Let the dead bury their dead..
@@zorancvetkovic7204 "He who fights against God..." He can not fight against God because he does not believe he exists. When will theists ever understand.
@@zorancvetkovic7204 lmao bring god down here so he can answer for the devils crimes? God cannot control the devil? lmao what a weak god.
bottom line is that if such effects are there they are like a squinting version of blind mutation. they would be selected for or re-suppressed in the same way any other gene substitution would be, except the new mechanism could both take away and give as another possibility for mutation. but maybe its apt to say that the connection to Lamarck would be more like the discovery of respiratory germs that spread through aerosols effectively in its relation to miasma theories, if there exists such squinting mutations. i don't think the Baldwin effect is appropriate, maybe an honest mistake, but yeah, don't know what else to say about that one, other than saying i'm sorry to Richard for misquoting him and so on, and social selection in terms of regimes where a trait can only be selected at the individual level due to a social environment with certain features is not outside the purview of his presentation of the selfish gene.
Clocks chime. Bells toll. I feel I've made a valuable contribution here.
They are both right. Even if a gene's effects can be overidden, it is the ensemble of genes that is causal in this matter. Genes do not work alone. I just watched this because I saw two people I knew from the early seventies - the Balliol/Biology connection. I am not an evolutionist or physiologist myself.
It looks like the autonomic nervous system is potentially informing or directing the override process and the genes are responding by either directly collaborating in the process or indirectly collaborating by self-down regulation which allows other genes to become more active and instructive in the genome.
That’s what Dawkins says here
"They are both right."
Denis Noble and Richard Dawkins on the same stage but without the bold, authoritative, assertations of RUclips commenters, how would I know who to believe?
Despite not being an evolutionist or physiologist yourself, I'm amazed you weren't asked to be the moderator.
I look forward to the link, to your peer reviewed paper, that explains your claim.
@@nicstroud The evidence for this can be found, even within the writings of Dawkins and others. Denis Noble's description of identifying genes that have most of the control over a particular system, and then finding that disabling this led to little change, itself shows that it is the ensemble of genes that is important. My work was in molecular biophysics (protein structures), so I take an interest in publications in this area. I was in the Department of Zoology when Richard Dawkins was modelling evolution on his computer and lived in a building overseen by Denis Noble. However, believe only those things where you can find the evidence. It is there.
@@stephencarlsbad Dawkins is right. Just because there is redundancy at the organism level doesn't negate Dawkins' view on the primacy of genes. The organism that has lost redundancy may be just as functional in the immediate but has been rendered less fit--less robust.
Great and respectful communication. Pleasure to watch.
Where is the rest of the debate? 🤔
Can two brilliant men with differing explanations for naturally occurring phenomena both be correct? This brief conversation suggests the answer is… YES!
It was very intellectual and refreshing.
So what I understand within my limited understanding is :
When two lions fight in the Serengeti for the alpha position , the 'alphaness factor' which will decide the winner resides in their genes or the individual lion is still debatable ??🤔
What is the purpose of the Poisson Distribution, is an instance random or not?
we can say organisms evolve through the change in the genome and its not a simple one way train so to speak, but it is necessary to have a certain range of genome to be able to have the cell change or error correct at all, and there needs to be these effects for the genome to be copied so accurately or for there to be redundancy that can make say a disease dormant in most people and so on and so forth.
and so there is nothing about the statement that genes evolve over time with advantage or they get diluted or cut off that says you cant even develop a molecular machinery that changes the genome in real time to improve its cell function or even in principle its offspring, but if that is a mechanism that has to arrise through natural selection then its results are also kind of part of the same process however its structured in the end :-)
Dawkins got it right I think; not sure how Noble actually thinks evolution is working mechanistically; what is his alternative to the gene centred view????
he's way educated than you on this topic I don't think you have a stand of any opinion about this if you haven't done a credible work
@@klopcodez excuse me , what do you know about my educational status and work? You come across not only as rude but also arrogant. Btw I work in the area of evolution….
And pleased
There's the Multi-Level Selection model which is popular among scholars, MLS theory suggests that selection will act on different levels, however: genes, cells, individual organisms, and kin, and each tugs the evolution of a species in different directions. There's other besides these two but it's not so much that these views are alternatives to one another. It's more that they are tools that each help to answer a different question in evolutionary biology.
How about "we don't know" ? That is the standard with science.
@@richardevans560 there are certain things we do in fact know
Is the audio slightly ahead of the video?
@TheInstituteOfArtAndIdeas, could you please share the name of that music track/artist used at the beginning of this video?
You can do this experiment over the course of a day, week or month, Dawkins is talking about billions of years of evolution, which makes perfect sense.
It seems to me, based on this clip of the conversation, that Dawkins and Noble have two different, and almost unrelated, points of focus.
Dawkins: the gene is the fundamental unit of hereditary transmission and of population-level attributes. (Incidentally, this emphasis seems to neglect the relevance of epigenetic factors.)
Noble: the gene is not generally what most directly determines an organism's functions and structures; rather, it's complex networks of genes and other related systems that establish an organism.
And what is your conclusion?
With the information available today, an organism definitely needs to be understood according to the 'complex systems' approach. Thus, I'm with Noble.
@ergonomover
I stood in front of the skull of Sue, the T-Rex at Chicago's Field museum. It was a walk-in, Sue could engulf a standing adult human in one jaw-stroke, she had 50 10-inch teeth and jaw crushing-power of 2000 ppsi. Good thing humans and T-Rex's never shared the planet.
Reply
@davidbanner6230
Do you think it possible that their demise had purpose?
How many millions of years did it take to evolve such creatures? Is nature so wasteful?
And if so, is our annihilation just as tenuous, at the whim of a madman?
Then life has no purpose, and evolution has no purpose, reason, or destiny?
Then this would mean that Atheists are right, there is no God, and the Universe/existence has no purpose?
Seems to me a mighty waste of time.....which also has no purpose?
@@edgarrenenartatez1932
That tells you nothing about what lead to current organisms and how they will change in the future.
Dr Dawkins should check what Dr Mike Levin is doing at Tufts University.
whats he doing?
@@ZARK0_ He's been stealing from the stationary cupboard when everyone else has gone home
Excellent point - what I find amazing is that the genome doesn’t contain any morphological information, the morphology is all in the bio-electric information maintained in the proton gradients. So in addition to the DNA, the ‘extra cellular vesicles,we now have bio-electric information stored in the cells equivalent of a silicon chip!! How did so many information systems simply evolve?
According to Professor Noble, knock out the gene and heart rate hardly alters; ie, it does alter.
Incomplete gene analysis.
Yes but hardly. If your heart rate falls 2% does that kill you? No. Will it affect your ability to be a hunter gatherer? Probably not. Especially if you are more intelligent than average and can devise better ways to find food, such as teamwork or weapon development.
@@richardevans560 That's a bold statement, and I'm interested. Can you explain in a little more detail?
I genuinely expected; 'See that evolutionary pressure selecting for island dwarfism, that's your mum that is'.
Noble is correct, Dawkins often disregards the 'wholeness' of organisms because of his selfish-gene view (which of course has its value). I think it is important to realise that the question 'What is the unit of selection?' in biology is not a question that nature asks herself, 'all levels at once' might be the most appropriate answer, and it's the one George Price gave (in mathematical terms) - a scientist to whom Dawkins owes a great deal.
And yes usually when you knock out a gene *for* something, that codes for an enzyme in a biosynthesis pathway for example, there is little effect on the end products of the biosynthesis pathway - until you knock out a few other genes which have been upregulated to compensate for the loss. There is a kind of basic 'intelligence' even at the genetic level which Dawkins also disregards in his view of life.
well said thaat man
top down causation
BS
What codes for the proteins and RNAs that cause the up-regulation? What is actually preserved through time if not the gene?
@@jacoblea825 The cell with its full suite of molecules and machineries inherited from the parent cell. You can't say it is some genes that attract or recruit all those trillions of crazy intricate molecular machineries, that's why it is wrong to say evolution just selects "genes".
Wow, never knew Wrangler and Levi had that much rivalry.😀
This should be free to view by all in totality!
I watched the whole debate on IAI. It was awesome to see these two in action. Both were brilliant and class acts. I have been reading and listening to Dawkins most of my life. I must confess that I was unaware of Denis Noble in a quality way until this event. These gentlemen were both great. Denis really made me stop and rethink a few things. This debate is well worth taking the time to watch in its entirety. I just discovered IAI and subscribed to that platform. If their content is generally as good as this, I want in for sure. Check it out.
Well, this is certainly more interesting than Dawkins' head to head with Piers Morgan
Dawkins talking to a chimp is more interesting than Dawkins talking to Piers Morgan. In fact, anyone talking to a chimp is more interesting than anyone talking to Piers Morgan.
@@danzigvssartre Between James Corden and Piers Morgan, I think the brits are finally getting revenge on us through emigration.
@@danzigvssartre Disagree
@danzigvssartre even Chomsky talks to Morgan
Dawkins says, DO THE ;EXPERIMENT, change the frequency of how the clock chimes, and Noble says, BUT I DID THE EXPERIMENT, knocked out the gene, and very little changed, and Dawkins says, NEVER THE LESS, damn your experiment, WE KNOW BETTER, and if than an appeal to a thought experiment based on his own certainty of knowledge.
This is quite common in theoretical physics as well, it's kind of how physicists work. I actually worked on a paper where the theorist said changing X makes a difference in experiments, we painstakingly showed that it doesn't, then he said are you sure..can you try it again? lol
I'm with Noble here. I think Dawkins' interpretation is quite restrictive and thus limited, while Noble's recognizes that there is greater complexity than Dawkins' hypothesis. With more information today concerning the extremely complex nature of an organism (and its parts!), 'complex systems' thinking and interpretation is necessary for a better understanding than merely a 'localized' one that Dawkins favors. There's not only a bottom-up dynamic but top-down (even left-right, right-left!). The whole system is dynamically integrated and affect and influence the different parts and components back and forth.
dawkins already acknowledges the solid empirical evidence that denis is referring to. i can only guess that this 'clash' was somewhat scripted to look like they have serious disagreements, but they don't, really. i wholeheartedly recommend both of denis' books and the 2020 cambridge elements by eva jablonka and marion j. lamb 'inheritance systems and the extended synthesis' and the research website 'the third way of evolution'.
@ergonomover
I stood in front of the skull of Sue, the T-Rex at Chicago's Field museum. It was a walk-in, Sue could engulf a standing adult human in one jaw-stroke, she had 50 10-inch teeth and jaw crushing-power of 2000 ppsi. Good thing humans and T-Rex's never shared the planet.
Reply
@davidbanner6230
Do you think it possible that their demise had purpose?
How many millions of years did it take to evolve such creatures? Is nature so wasteful?
And if so, is our annihilation just as tenuous, at the whim of a madman?
Then life has no purpose, and evolution has no purpose, reason, or destiny?
Then this would mean that Atheists are right, there is no God, and the Universe/existence has no purpose?
Seems to me a mighty waste of time.....which also has no purpose?
And what are the testable predictions from your hypothesis. Yeah nothing. It's just your imagination
@@ThatisnotHair it's an already empirically substantiated hypothesis. you can start with reading the books in my previous comment + read the papers listed on denis' & the third way of evolution website.
@@ThatisnotHair Um, the entire life's work of Dr. Noble is about the analysis reapraisal of the empirical data that goes deeper and broader than that of Dawkins?
They are both master debaters when it comes to evolution and genes and all that science stuff.
Both are correct. Genes use substrates and chemical reactions in their environment to replicate while their expression is subject to the many chemical products and energy currency that feed back upon it to control its expression. In fact the debate itself is incorrect in that the partnership between genes and their environmental substrates-products is to be messed with at the peril of Life itself.
It might adapt or have redundancy but what is the robustness of that adaptation? Is the organism still able to exert itself to the same degree or is it now limited after that gene is blocked?
hmm and I'm stumped lol. but seriously I think mr. Noble could have a point, things are always a bit more complicated at a microscopic level thats all I'm saying, so is there more to 'it' than just the 'selfish gene' or do we leave it at that.
one of the points of this redundancy argument is that a living cell through its genome evolving gains the ability to proof read itself. which is a good example, but it is still part of the expression of the genome. :) the enzymes are all there and so on and so forth.
Are you kidding?! Pinker is a known Epstein associate who was full of it to begin with, and Dawkins has been proven irrelevant in evolutionary biology for a LONG time, so he just simps for American and British imperialism now in place of a scientific career. Mehdi is correct, you have very low standards, this is a PDF file talking to a has been who wrote his book in 1976 with nothing he predicted coming true yet still defends it with no facts to support it, but complains about religious people not listening to reason, what a hypocrite
This is the first time I saw Richard Dawkins in a proper debate/ discussion where people let each other finish their sentences. Those religious apologetics never let Richard finish a single sentence lol.
they get to emotional religion is about emotion not logic
You are delusional
Christianty is actually a relationship not a religion. Dorkins got owned by a few theist.
Great discussion, but I couldn't help thinking of Harry Enfield and Paul Whitehouse when watching this!
Do i have to be from the UK to subscribe to your website?
@@ordinarryalien It cuts the video and asks you to subscribe after watching a few minutes. At least that's what happens for me.
@@bt18 I'm so sorry, I completely misinformed you. Yes, you have to pay to watch the whole video. According to the Terms and Conditions, you do not need to be from the UK to subscribe.
@@ordinarryalien Yeah, no problem. They don't accept my credit cards, that's the problem.
Would love to listen to this in full without being forced into a browser.
Please link of full video?
In the description
Has Dawkins ever addressed the shameful persecution of the modern-day Galileo, Nobel Prize-winner James Watson?
I think that what this discussion nicely demonstrates, is that science is far from finite. One branch of science can seriously challenge facts? Established by another branch of science. There is, as yet, no finite conclusion that can be drawn.
I can't wait to hear Professor Dawkins address here in Brisbane. He is a hero of mine.
How is he a hero? He basically tells you you're a lump of flesh with no purpose or meaning.
@rex777 you could not be more wrong.
@@matthewpocock4824 oh he did find God. Excellent and about time.
@@rexxx777
"Did he find god"
Why, is god lost AGAIN?
What a bumbler he continues to be .
@@rexxx777 , and also supports non-scientific dictatorial lockdowns and mask wearing.
Noble's interpretation of his experiment that deleted a gene responsible for 80% of the heart's rhythm seems uncompelling. He merely showed there's some redundancy in some important physiological systems. He should have deleted ALL of the (small number of) genes responsible for heart rhythm. That would have led to a much clearer conclusion.
Not quite. If your claim is that genes are causal, not that networks of genes are circularly causal in the environment of the organism, then that claim is simply wrong. Dawkins is wrong here.
@@Oscarman746 : I don't know what you're going on about, nor why you believe I made a claim I didn't make. The only claim I made is that Noble didn't prove anything by deleting a gene responsible for only 80% of a rhythm. Here's an analogy: If both parents are pushing a child on a playground swing, and one of the parents drops out, the swinging continues because the remaining parent is sufficient, even if the remaining parent is a weakling.
@@brothermine2292 Noble's interpretation is the same as your parental swing analogy. Multiple circular causes in a dynamic and complex system rather than simple gene level causality. In contesting Noble's claim I suggest you are (indirectly) supporting Dawkins' gene theory here (I.e. Dawkins says that your metaphorical parent gene causes the swinging of infants). If you call the removal of one gene "redundancy" you are saying redundancy in a system of non-selfish but social genes.
@@Oscarman746 : I don't think that's what Noble was saying when he described the experiment. My impression is that he was denying the importance of genes, including combinations of genes.
@@brothermine2292 yes, that's the point I was getting at, you don't seem to see what Noble's is saying. He specifically says that organisms override individual gene causality due to networks within the organism, like one parent in the swing or a network of genes substiting for another to maintain bodily/rotational homeostasis. This is what I said, what Noble's said, and is clearly a good fit for your parent swing analogy. Consider breaking it down conceptually and I think you'll see that Noble's has very good grounds for his network model for carcadian rhythms.
What I gather, are two points:
* epigenetics can affect the organism
* genes are more essential for evolution
I still think epigenetic changes can be inherited for future generations, but can they continue for millions of years?
Epigenetics has been shown to be responsible for the change in the beak size and form of the famous Galapagos finches. Those changes happen at a frequency of a few years and they are reversible.
Much of what is interpreted as evolution is in fact short term epigenetic adaptation.
I couldn’t quite understand this exchange, but I have always agreed with Dawkins’ approach in the past. I regret I cannot understand Denis Noble’s points.
A simplified explanation of what they were saying would be appreciated.
Dawkins' (correct) point of view is that it is really the genome that evolves. Noble made a nonsensical attempt to counter this view by pointing out the unsurprising fact that the genome is remarkably complex and contains a degree of redundancy, so that if one gene/protein is rendered inoperative, other genes/proteins may take over its duties and enable the individual to survive. This does nothing to refute Dawkins' statement. Of course the genome evolved to be make itself as capable as possible of surviving damage to any particular gene.
@@truthbetold444 Thank you Theo. If Noble’s argument was nonsensical I don’t feel so bad about not understanding it.
Dawkins always gives the impression of rage simmering just below the surface.
Lol
What garbage.
He is an egomaniac. Clear as day.
He is moral
He is angry at the God he doesn't believe in..
How do genes mutate then ? If Jewish men have been circumcised for over 4000 years then when will the gene decide to mutate so future Jewish men would be born without foreskin. Especially since foreskin removal has health benefits. So how come this has not happened?
You just don't get evolution do you.
Also the best you find on health benefits is may have.
All the risk are there even if lower.
What is known is it can cause scaring loss of sensation and kills hundreds every yeah in America alone.
Peace of mind is most important in life. All a persons intelligence means nothing without enjoying life, we are on planet earth such a short time even if we live till 95. People agree or disagree but time goes on
This debate will be much useful for those who have doubts-Trying to contradict it if you are not in doubt, will be a difficult task to do therefore it is better not to get involved if you don't have doubts
I have doubts
Do they both go to the same hairdresser?
they both DONT go to him : )
Why does Dawkins keep calling himself an “evolutionist,” as though it’s a philosophical view he subscribes to? And, why would being an evolutionist determine how you look at things?
I wondered that. He sounds like a fundamentalist on Quora.
He’s essentially trying to say he (Dawkins) is the one taking an evolutionary perspective on evolution, not a physiological one (as Denis primarily is).
Evolution isn't a philosophy. It's a fact
@@TriggerWarning0 Exactly.
@@TriggerWarning0 No one here is disputing the idea that life evolves. The dispute is over the how.
so if it is so that the expression of a genome can create an apparatus that can change the genome in the next generation, then it still has its root in the expression of that genome, and thereby it would as Richard says be easy to include in his picture, *chough* as he actually stated it :-). that is to say its perfectly reasonable to suppose that evolution can lead to such mechanisms, but it would be just another avenue for mutation, even if its not as blind in a particular sense if true ^^
Noble's hair is right out of a 1979 Battlestar Galactica episode. Beautiful.
well, life has redundancy, a lot of how genes are set up has to do with redundancy, like having codons that can be replaced without changing the protein and so on. so its kind of silly to say because genes are not always on their own capable to changing much that means they are not causal, because they might just be causal in a way that contains a lot of redundancy, and because that is advantageous on the whole through the fact that even if one specimen loses an important gene that on its own doesn't make it not viable on its own, it will be likely that a few generations down the line the offspring will regain that, on the whole that kind of redundancy is so important for stabilizing the important parts of the genome that it is likely to evolve in this way pretty early on in the evolution of more complicated organisms. genes are still going to determine the possible proteins, but if you have redundancy for small complexes of genes or single genes then its advantageous. roughly speaking ofc.
I am sorry, I don't endorse Dawkins view. Causal agents can be identified by the effects, so when he claims selfish nature of genes and provides a heap of justifications, he needed only considered Darwin's survival strategy , instead of making things up. I wonder what fantasy he will dish out if I to;d that imaginary number i is defined to be the ratio of effect by cause.
Can you answer the question of why members of a species help each other by forming groups without including anything in your justification which refers to the desires of the individual members?
@@irish_deconstruction Members of many species, including humans, don't help each other by forming groups. They are already groups, groups is the status quo, and they have to take active steps to individuate or personalize themselves. Darwinists often get the explanatory burden the wrong way around. Game-theory in particular is just a completely artificial framework for understanding human beings.
This is how to have a conversation
Would have been great to see a 'trialogue' with Rupert Sheldrake in the mix
The selfish gene view or other adaptationist/ultra-Darwinian views have been obsolete since long ago. There are lots of heritable information and information that interacts with selective pressure other than some discrete sequences of gene.
Which heritable information would that then be, if not the genes?
@@selfdex A few first principles to consider:
1. Natural selection acts only on phenotype/traits.
2. Information requires an "interpreting environment"
From these two premises, it is abundantly clear that natural selection cannot just select genes/genetic information because they can't exist alone to produce a phenotype (except auto-catalytic RNA if you want to call that a "gene"). Genes as we know it must come with regulatory networks (i.e., epigenetics) and the cell environment (that's why you don't pass on genes, you pass on cells with already equipped maternal molecules). The cell and extracellular interface have another layer of information encoded by electrical states to guide development. Even so, all these can be easily disrupted by the external environment (and result in developmental disorder i.e., phenotypes change with the exact same gene), hence why higher organisms are reproduced in a womb (to provide a constant environment) and these are all selected together en mass in the lens of natural selection. You can imagine the information goes further up and up and the causal network is a jungle instead of a single bottom-up control/blueprint.
@@y37chung Great explanation, but I don't think the selfish gene view as described by Dawkins is much different then your explanation. If I remember correctly Dawkins stated multiple times in his books that it is easier to speak in terms as a gene for this and a gene for that, but that this doesn't necessarily reflect reality. However, the underlying principle of gene selection would still apply.
Whats this "information"?
It's not a scienctific term is it?
Irrelevant really as evolution has been proven since the 1870s.
It's the corner stone of modern biology and underpins our whole understanding of modern medicine.
Your a ape, evolved sharing ancestry with all life on earth.
@@jameswright...
Does anyone know what babbles this Mr. Wright is ranting?
Information is not a scientific term? (hint: Claude Shannon)
No one is arguing against the existence of evolution here (nor in the video), we are arguing about how it occurs. Seems like somebody needs an extra English reading and vocabulary class.
Fact is, Dawkins isn't a scantest, he's more kinda of an actor, journalist, whateverMeanwhile Noble has written over 600 paper, also he was supervisor over Dawkins back when he was student.
Noble against selfish gene idea,, and the actor don't like that.
a...scantest?
@@holliswilliams8426 , clearly means scientist. And he's right, Dawkins is a celebrity for attacking religion, often caricatured versions of it, probably as he knows that he's contributed next to nothing to the field of science.
@@SagaciousFrank Scantest clearly means nothing. And your proceeding sentiments are absolutrly caricature.
@@Daniel-sg2vo , scantest was the incorrect word. And Dawkins is a failed scientist, who blogs and lectured about the history of science.
@@SagaciousFrank More caricature, and your definition of failed is very silly.
Beautiful! They are so civilized in their manners and have no tendency towards prejudice. Science, science and only science. It may not have all the answers but it sure is the major source of knowledge, wisdom and prosperity
the only answers i care about, though
Richard Dawkins is truly amazing. He's correct on every level; every time. :)
lol good one
Evidence and fact based! He’s so great to listen to.
Your long-term SELFISH Satisfaction BEST is enhanced by helping others enhance their Satisfaction.
that is to say if you rephrase what richard said to "genomes are causal" then it covers all of the objections i think. for example instead of talking about individual genes you talk about subtitutions of individual genes in the possible genomes where its viable at all, so in a set of genomes where a certain gene does not have any advantage or effect subtle or pronounced on the organism, that gene will randomly change into something useful or something else that is also random but equally not harmful.
In other contexts Dawkins denies any causality in how life came to be and how it adapts.
Can somebody give me the link to full video? I'll be very grateful to him/her.
Yes its linked with the OP first comment
@@daviddeida It's trash, it begs for money.
@@John-nb6ep You can watch the full interview on y/t Dawkins re-examined: Dawkins' legacy
You can watch the full interview on y/t Dawkins re-examined: Dawkins' legacy
I pray for Richard to live 100 years
He is such a diomond
why not hundred fifteen
@@dolpo5138 😊😊👍
He believes "literally nothing" gave us all this. To you that's somehow brilliant.
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
Seems as though that word has mutated.
@@2fast2block Please abstain yourself from commenting on things you do not have proper a understanding of. The laws of thermodynamics do not affirm the existence of supernatural .
Every effect must have a cause. Design argues intelligence.
The first statement is true, the second isn't coherent.
"Design" is evolvolution through natural selection. I'd doesn't require a designer
"Every effect must have a cause"
As far as we know that applies to all that is within nature, but we hadn't any prerequisite that nature itself would necessitate a cause.
"Design argues intelligence"
Sure, now proceed to demonstrate that nature itself is a design.
are we back to this again?
Yes, God did create the universe, then evolution happened.
What is that metal thingy behind the moderators head, lol!
and IF being a pretty important qualifier.
My god dawkins is such a simpleton. It really hurt trying to make sense of any of his babble
If you have ever read both Noble and Dawkins, then you will wait impatiently for any write-up from Noble. You will never open a page of Dawkins again.
History will see Dawkins as a trivial linear minded extrapolator of simple ideas. History will cherish each point raised by Noble and the ideas and approaches he brings.
Fast forward 100 years and the points that Noble makes will be the central issues in research. Dawkins will have been forgotten.
you're right but probably 99% of researchers will be forgotten in 100 years time
Never heard of him.
For goodness sake! They're not even arguing the same point!
That's the proteins problem not the genes problem. Good discussion
Are proteins not part of genes?! If they are then that's like saying putting two bags of sugar in the tea cup doesn't effect the tea.
@@Islamiccalling genes code for protein created by the protein factories called ribosomes, that's all they do
I've always found genetic determinism a troublesome idea.
Especially as far as behavior and, even more, consciousness are concerned.
To my knowledge, nobody has ever hypothesized, let alone proved, how genes can determine innate behaviors, like fixed-action patterns for example.
"Everybodeh wanna be a bodi buildah - but don't no bodeh wanna liff no heavy ass weit!" - Ronald Dean Coleman III, Esq.
There's heredity or environment, or, more correctly, some combination of the two. What else can there be?
Biology determines some things, but not everything. There are plenty of things that biology does not forbid or require, and plenty of things it does
@@kenp3L We certainly cannot have the pretense to say that have discovered everything about reality, can we?
@@Faustobellissimo Of course. We must make reasonable determinations based on the available information. The nature-nurture debate has been ongoing for millennia. No reasonable person claims behavior is entirely caused by nature or entirely caused by nurture. The question is how much of each in a given situation.
Professor Dawkins rightly said ,that genes are causal agents from the evolutionary point of view.Thanks Sir. 🙏👍
Generalizing is a method of creating a plainfield to give yourself time to stay relevant, and/or avoid aknowledging, that the other person might be right and you might be wrong.
They are both "right", because they aren't arguing truth. They are arguing perspective. From the physiological standpoint genotype is what codes for and therefore causes phenotype. However, phenotype is what selective pressure acts on, which shapes allele frequency of the population, which narrows the window through which the genotypes of individuals may be drawn. That means from an evolutionary standpoint phenotype is what indirectly affects ("causes") genotype. Unless I just missed the point, which I may have, I only watched these 5 minutes.
Dawkins is the answer.
He is the answer? He believes we got all this by "literally nothing." That is not an answer. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
That's a stupid answer
@@2fast2block Correct. God does exist and he did create the universe, then evolution happened.
@@2fast2block Dawkins is not the answer.
@@aspiknf no, God created in the order just as the bible says. Don't let these pretend intellectuals sway you otherwise.
I can't believe you didn't show the clip towards the end of the debate where Dawkins accuses him of 'not wanting any smoke' then punches him right in the face.
The chances of that happening are trillions to one. 😂🤣😂🤣😂
In this clipped clip, Dawkins' argument prevails, but one wonders what followed the abrupt end of the clip.
I think thats because Dorkins has an army of 'bitter atheist / failed scientist' fans. They drink up how he enjoys telling people with faith how stupid they are. No surer sign of a dumb scientist for me, and I say that as an atheist/agnostic or whatever you want to call my lack of religiosity before I am misunderstood. All I say to such fanboys is read some Popper, Kuhn, Wittgenstein with the STEM lads.
Only just heard of Noble but his argument is important anyway
Don't you think that this non-sequitur-cum-argumentum-ad-hominem would be more appropriately posted as a stand-alone comment than as a response to another's observation?
Denis Noble is one of my scientific heroes.