Science Is Reconsidering Evolution

Science Is Reconsidering Evolution Variable Minds 16.7K subscribers Subscribe 7.8K Share Download Clip Save 216K views 10 days ago Variable Minds Richard Dawkins' Selfish Gene faces a formidable challenge as biophysicist Denis Noble makes a case for an evolution driven by purpose, intention and a collective intelligence of organisms. ▶️ Read the article on Forbes.com https://rb.gy/db2ahv … 2,368 Comments Add a comment... Pinned by Variable Minds @deadman746 9 days ago (edited) I'm glad Noble is still arguing with Dawkins. There's nothing basically wrong with what he says, as there's nothing basically wrong with Dawkins' selfish gene. But we've learned a lot since I worked on the Human Genome project in the early 1990s. (I worked on the cystic fibrosis gene and also did chaos studies with the heart and brain, so there are two specific connections.) Back then, the canonical view was that almost all of the DNA was junk. It isn't. That overwhelming majority of DNA is for the control structures that turn genes on and off and in-between. If a chemical (not always a protein) sticks to the junk and covers the start codon, the gene will never be expressed. If another chemical sticks to the junk and covers where the first chemical would stick, it turns the gene proactively back on. This is a gross oversimplification just to get the basic idea across, and things are way more complicated. This is basic epigenetics. Almost all the differences between humans and chimpanzees are epigenetic, so this is big. It's also small. Political affiliation is about 70% heritable, most likely due to stress hormones from the mother in utero. Of course, e.g. transcription factors in the egg are important, as Noble mentions, but it goes way beyond that. This is in no way fringe science. It was slightly controversial two decades ago but no longer. I reccomend two popularly accessible sources. One is Robert Sapolsky's Human Behavioral Biology series here on YouTube. It's 12 years old but still very good. The other is the book Evolution in Four Dimensions by Eva Jablonsky and Marion J. Lamb. It's from 2006, when there was still some controversy worth paying attention to, but it's solid. It describes four interrelated evolutionary mechanisms: genetic, epigenetic, behavioral, and symbolic. I'm doing more cognitive linguistics and science these days, so I'm very interested in the last two which seem the most outré. My conclusions are that it's pretty solid and jibes with my hypotheses about how Broca's and Wernicke's areas and the auriculate whatyoumaycallit evolved in conjunction with the predictions based on the psycholingusts' ideas based on Shannon entropy. Of course, the focus on my current work is AGI so I can build an army of steampunk-looking robots to conquer the world. Still, a lot of that is based on human brains, especially as the psycholinguists have been doing great stuff with fMRI lately and confirmed predictions I made a decade ago. 378 Reply 62 replies @talkpopgen 7 days ago Hi, evolutionary biologist here. Science is not reconsidering evolution; Denis Noble is not respected in the field of evolutionary biology and has made exactly zero contributions to evolutionary theory. The history here is completely muddled; neo-Darwinism ≠ the Modern Synthesis ≠ gene-centrism - these are distinctly different concepts. In particular, gene-centrism is a product of the 1970s beginning with George C. Williams and later popularized by Dawkins. But most of the original founders of the Modern Synthesis were vehemently anti-gene centrism (a rather famous example is Ernst Mayr himself who promoted a holistic view of selection). Noble here conflates the complication of strict genotype-phenotype associations with undermining evolutionary processes themselves. We have long known there is not a straight 1:1 association between genes and phenotypes - read Fisher (1918), Wright (1922), etc., in which they explicitly account for environmental and developmental influences on trait variance almost forty years before we even knew the structure of DNA! This says exactly nothing about whether the mechanisms of evolution are in question (they are not). I'm literally BEGGING people to learn something about evolutionary theory before interviewing people like Noble. Evolutionary theory is a robust, mostly complete framework that includes mountains of empirical support for the dozens of mathematical theorems at its disposal. These sorts of things grossly misrepresent my field, and it's frankly insulting. 122 Reply 52 replies @kevinsmith-qj1bz 9 days ago Wow! What a difference the interviewer makes. Dennis Noble is a great mind, but the host did her homework, and brought the best out of him. Thank you Andrea. 460 Reply 16 replies @andrewbreding593 9 days ago I'm trying to wrap my head around what he's talking about and she's just right there asking him to define his use of words. It's good to have an interviewer that's much smarter than me. Humbling, informative 227 Reply 7 replies @charowarhussain3012 9 days ago I like the way the host provides definitions for scientific ideas . It makes the discussion more understandable and hence enjoyable. 50 Reply @Samsara_is_dukkha 10 days ago (edited) Donald Hoffman's theory of conscious realism postulates that evolution by natural selection is directed towards fitness payoffs and that organisms develop internal models of reality that increase these fitness payoffs. This means that organisms develop a perception of the world that is directed towards fitness, and not of reality. In other words, perceptual experiences do not match or approximate properties of the objective world, but instead provide a simplified, species-specific user interface to that world. Such constraints define purpose, and purpose implies consciousness. Add to this the discovery by theoretical physicists that spacetime, hence matter and energy are not fundamental and we are left with the notion that perhaps consciousness is fundamental and its ultimate purpose is to find a way to escape the constraints it is trapped into. 596 Reply 181 replies @williamhaddoc 9 days ago I’m amazed by people with houses and furniture. 114 Reply 18 replies @appl314 9 days ago Definitely shows how much of our current knowledge is hampered by popularity rather than facts 233 Reply 31 replies @johnunderwood9575 9 days ago Andrea, I am so thrilled every time I discover a skilled and honorable host such as yourself. You're interview platform is comprehensive, respectful, and complete. Thank you so much for your efforts and hard work, it shows. As for your guest, what an inciteful intelligent and humble gentleman. His grasp and understanding of how the business of science has been corrupted by the grant system is spot on! My hat is off to him, what integrity! 68 Reply 1 reply @JasperCarrot-rp5tb 9 days ago What a great guy, very clever but open minded and accessible. 30 Reply @lancestringer4964 7 days ago (edited) It is simply incorrect to say that stochasticity means "randomness that can't be predicted". And Noble doesn't use the concept in this way. Stochastic systems can range from being entirely unpredictable to being highly reproducible and predictable, including in biological systems. 26 Reply 3 replies @yf1177 8 days ago Also, it is a mischaracterization to suggest that Dawkins considers organisms to be inherently selfish. It is the gene which is selfish. Cooperation on the organismal level can enhance the gene's selfish replication. This is why cooperation evolved. Dawkins has been very clear about this in his writings. 74 Reply 35 replies @paulaa1175 9 days ago (edited) I work in philosophy, and I find most of these discussions exploit the vagaries of linguistic definitions and some conceptual vagueness in order to get speculative arguments up and running. We should not over-attribute directional or purposive forces to evolution when we do not have any alternate life forms outside of our planet's offerings to act as contrast, and we struggle to see clear evidence in the evolutionary record as it is. We simply cannot know if general evolutionary 'directions' supply any guidance or provide 'intelligence' beyond observed selection and the various pressures we know about. We may 'like the idea' of more direction going on - but that's not an argument. 159 Reply 66 replies @anywallsocket 10 days ago The cellular ‘intelligence’ theory needs to consider whether they’d call cellular automata ‘intelligent’, because I can write a genetic algorithm in 100 lines of code which ‘learns to survive’ based on ‘genes’. Is the algorithm ‘intelligent’? It has a problem, it uses stochastic to solve it. I think we need to step away from the feeling that things are either intelligent or they aren’t, and the idea that it’s special somehow (same with a lot of words, like ‘purpose’), for these things exist in gradients, and it’s really up to us where we draw the line between special and less special. 55 Reply 32 replies @wilhelmschroeder7345 7 days ago (edited) Analogy: A piece of music isn't an assemblage of notes. The composer has the whole in mind when writing the notes in tablature. If an ensemble is playing the piece and one of the instrumentalists break a string, another instrumentalist can jump in to compensate for the lost notes of the broken stringed instrument; thus, the music does not disintegrate. The music "mends itself". 18 Reply 4 replies @djquinn11 3 days ago God I love to listen to people who can make such logical arguments and back it up with research. Two smart people here, Dennis Noble is a treasure. 2 Reply @th693 9 days ago Really interesting conversation, and masterfully edited. Your inclusion of asides to explain concepts really adds a lot of value to the presentation. New sub! 29 Reply @LazorLaRue 3 days ago I was about to hit ‘don’t recommend channel,’ thinking that the algorithm was trying to shove me into the apologetics rabbit hole again, when the video started playing and turned out to be really interesting, awesome video, subscribed 5 Reply 1 reply @dravonwalker2352 7 days ago I love the interjections she adds to explain or define what is being discussed and yet those interjections assume audience intelligence. It made this interview much more accessible to those of us who are interested but not entrenched or a professional in the field. Thank you! 10 Reply 1 reply @hipgnotist777 5 days ago I do wish I could talk to this guy and find out if he worked with Dr. William W.L. Glenn, who invented the pacemaker that has kept my brother on the right side of the dirt for 55 years now. 4 Reply @richardfinlayson1524 9 days ago Evolution is obviously driven by something, I think the relationship between reality and our awareness is much weirder than most people realise 121 Reply 32 replies @tangtangmiao 9 days ago Dennis Noble's impressive understanding and his ability to express it succinctly is no easy feat. 29 Reply @gardnert1 7 days ago Probably your best interview yet! Your skill at adding much needed context for us lay-people at the right time is unparalleled! 4 Reply @lancestringer4964 7 days ago (edited) I'm glad he corrected a fundamental misunderstanding that many have (as did you), namely that evolution brought about life. Evolution presumes the existence of life and proceeds from that point on. As he said, we have little to no idea as to the origin of life. It remains a deep mystery. 4 Reply @JoshRyanWood 8 days ago If something “critical” is removed, I’m having trouble understanding how it is “critical”…. 17 Reply 5 replies @TheDAT9 8 days ago I love listening to people like Denis Noble and Roger Penrose, trying to figure It All out. They are our best minds, and are our heroes. 28 Reply @kornklown420 6 days ago I think he makes a really good point about reductionism, I think that can be a problem in science in general. Oftentimes it seems like scientists are looking so closely at the individual pieces they fail to see what emerges from them. And ironically, I think he does the same thing with AI. He is so focused on the building blocks of the thing, he is missing the fact that it is what emerges that matters, and oftentimes what emerges does not resemble the pieces from which it emerged. You can have pieces that are rigid, but through complex structure emerges something fluid. 2 Reply @Meeps42069 6 days ago Please, Andrea, keep up your work and content. This is the first video of yours I've seen, (YT algo picking you up by looks of recent comments) and it is absolutely masterfully done. The world needs hosts/creators like you to give voice and spotlight to people and ideas in an ever polarizing and rigid world. 4 Reply @88SunsetStrip 9 days ago (edited) Claiming that purpose exists prior to life is Platonic. This is to say that the proposition is completely subjective. It can not be measured nor tested by experiment. Moreover it is circular, in that the concept requires life to create the proposal. See the book, Trust Your Atoms. 77 Reply 44 replies @ashwinisarah 6 days ago At 59, im getting the education I wasnt interested in as a teenager thanks to wonderful conversations like these on YouTube... I find such a wonderful crossover and connection between the works of Iain Mcgilchrist, Donald Hoffman, Bernardo Kastrup and Denis Noble...and if you're also dipping your toes in Advaita Philosophy, it really presents a very thought provoking framework to consider life and the purpose thereif... 3 Reply @raminagrobis6112 7 days ago (edited) Noble is one of the most perceptive minds in modern biology. He is also quite the erudite. And at his age, he still makes more sense than many younger rising stars in genetics whose background has skipped too many topics outside their limited area of research. Great video! 1 Reply @lethalwolf7455 17 hours ago This is the smartest woman and best interviewer I’ve ever seen. She asks the exact questions we want to know and then lets her guest explain without interrupting. Great channel! Reply @SueiWaa 9 days ago Would be so great if Denis Noble and Michael Levin discussed with each other! :) 31 Reply @gammaburst1 9 days ago (edited) Just found your channel. LOVE LOVE LOVE! Finally something profoundly interesting on YouTube. One question, how is it that Noble’s environment goes through diurnal lighting and clothing changes but your lighting and environment has no change even though you sit in front of the natural light of windows? Did you re-record your questions and responses in one sitting for production effect? 6 Reply Variable Minds · 2 replies @psyshanudasan 7 days ago The interviewer did a great job 2 Reply @CocaKola913 10 hours ago He explains things in a way more complicated way than they need to be 1 Reply @Gary-el7jy 6 days ago My daughter is going to apply to Oxford to study biology and I sincerely hope if successful she encounters such a wholesome sincere academic such as Denis, who in my opinion is moving biology into a new era of discovery an enlightenment. 5 Reply 1 reply @thehermitmonk081 9 days ago (edited) This interview is missing one crucial block to form a visceral understanding of how autocatalytic processes work. Denis Noble missed this monumental point when describing life as a process around 56:45 1) Life is a property of matter. 2) "Any process" involving matter does(!) require a reason, and that reason is existing within a thermodynamic inequilibrium. As soon as equilibrium is reached, all processes cease. Life can only exist on an energy gradient. The local gradient we have on Earth is formed by the planet cooling itself against the space, mostly via radiative cooling, while receiving new heat and photons from the Sun and radioactive decay inside of itself. An easy way to compehend this is the metal analogy: most metals will be liquid at high temperatures but start forming an ordered crystal lattice that didn't exist before one atom at a time while being cooled down to room temperature. Some atoms like carbon (due to their outer electron level) can form and reform into different molecules of almost infinite complexity when there is an appropriate energy gradient. Most life on Earth can only use the high-quality potential energy of chemical bonds (digesting) to upkeep itself, but plants, microalgage and cyanobacteria intercept photons from the Sun directly and use that to assemble matter. This is also why carbon life can only exist within a very narrow temperature band (0-100C, because all organic matter requires either H or O as inputs at some point), and mammals within a fraction of even that. Our bodies only function within roughly 35-44C, and are designed to spend energy to cool or heat up when outside the perfect (36.6C) band. 9 Reply 1 reply @aivkara 9 days ago What an excellent mind Noble has, and what a great interview by Andrea. Thank you! 2 Reply @dweblinveltz5035 2 days ago This was a great conversation. I'm a bit surprised that there are any people who wouldn't agree that purpose is itself evolutionary. Even to me, a lay-person, would simply assume as much. I'm coming from a background of familiarity with Dawkins having grown up an atheist at the height of his movement, among others, but some of his views have never sat right with me. I couldn't begin to explain why. Firstly, I simply don't care if there is a creator who originated evolution or not. It makes no difference either way, and we can't prove it to begin with. So, who cares? 2 Reply @rachmondhoward2125 9 days ago Adrienne, I like the way you asking questions. Really brilliant! I certainly need to look further into Nobel's ideas and other Kaufman. 4 Reply @aleedersart 9 days ago @14:08 as a portrait artist, I've come to realize, I ONLY notice about 12 different eye shapes, 10 ish mouth shapes, about 8 forehead shapes, and maybe about 9 noses. Go ahead... examine this. You pass by humans all the time, go ahead see if your uncles hands are on that one, is that eyebrow identical to your grampas? Notice the hair? How many textures of hair do YOU see in your world? About 8? Point being, I've come to understand we are a very limited visual difference in comparison to each other. 8 Reply 1 reply @morphixnm 4 days ago Great to hear Noble reference Aristotle and by implication the importance of philosophical thinking within science. 1 Reply @Thedrummaman76 6 days ago We should always be reconsidering ffs. SCIENCE IS TOO RIGID IN THIS AGE ️ 1 Reply @TimoDcTheLikelyLad 10 days ago (edited) I love how sharp your analysis skills are and how you handle these conversations.. this one was very insightful just like the one with Penrose. I'd love to see Donald Hoffman here too someday if you are interested in his conscious realism theorem. 7 Reply Variable Minds · 1 reply @cranieldaig5293 10 days ago (edited) The discussions you have put forth into the collective consciousness have bought meaning and purpose to a mind that was nihilistic before. Thankyou for your contributions, they truly have made a difference; one day I hope to aid the emergence of our understanding as you have. Much love x 63 Reply Variable Minds · 11 replies @johnbrusseau8145 9 days ago This conversation was the most insightful discussion I have ever herd on a scientific topic. It required both of you to make this happen. I am wowed by this. 2 Reply @CaidicusProductions 8 days ago That was SO engaging, holy smokes! The man is brilliant, and should at least be heard, considered, and... Ahem, conversed with (a conversation, not a debate, per se) by scientist and biologists who disagree, aren't sure, and/or are also willing to consider his ideas. Also, what an amazing interviewer. So many amazing questions, replies, ideas, and engagement. I've subscribed. 1 Reply @avataros111 9 days ago (edited) It is hilarious we hardly have any idea about what happens inside of ourselves at any moment or in general. Thank you for one of the most interesting conversations. 3 Reply 1 reply @Klaus293 9 days ago Andréa, I’m so pleased that I stumbled upon your channel. Your discussions are very interesting and not dumbed, to the oversimplification, for pop-sci consumption. The receipts are shown and we can springboard into our own explorations of paths heretofore unknown. Excellent and I’m a new subscriber. Good work! 10 Reply 1 reply @isabellefaguy7351 6 hours ago "we can't agree with you sir, because that would mean we had been in error for decades"... and I thought science was about always finding more information and proving that we were wrong in the past... Reply @Fahrenheit4051 7 days ago Question - Could active vs. passive causation occur on a continuum? Like the example given with a single-gene disease like cystic fibrosis, would that be a more active cause than a genetic fault that could be compensated for? Reply @nathanclark7145 9 days ago Great interview and video 5 Reply @tomazflegar 9 days ago So, maybe the cell are emergent functions not other way around. But as we are approaching from reductions view we see the "functions" are emerging. 3 Reply @johnbrusseau8145 9 days ago The way to work with and responsibly assess assumptions is simply to honestly look for inconsistencies between those assumptions and other ideas we currently hold. Some of our held ideas themselves are inconsistent with the majority of our ideas, so that they too are revealed to be wrong assumptions. But it is by noting inconsistency with the majority of what we know that we can reliably know there is an error in our assumptions. 1 Reply @Gaurav-pq2ug 6 days ago Here are the key points of this Video: 00:02 Noble's research challenges the concept of the Vican Barrier in evolution 03:02 Darwin considered an additional process to natural selection 08:26 Autocatalytic sets challenge the Gene Centric Theory. 11:08 Science is reconsidering genetic reductionism. 16:43 Genetic determinism challenged by study on polygenic risk scores. 18:54 Genes and proteins have complex causal relationships. 23:11 Challenging the concept of genes as the blueprint of life. 25:25 Evolution has generated purpose in organisms. 30:34 Evolution and purpose in a scientific context 33:10 Living cells have complex structures that constrain the behavior of molecules. 38:05 Organisms can turbocharge natural selection. 40:28 Viruses can reproduce without being alive. 45:09 Unconscious processes can produce purposive behavior without being intentional 48:06 Cells exhibit cognitive abilities in Evolution 52:52 Purpose emerges through constraints within autocatalytic networks 55:31 Purpose can be perceived as a non-conscious process by science. 1:00:00 Reconsidering Darwinism and the central dogma 1:02:08 Challenging the notion of genes as the sole cause 1:06:41 Challenges faced due to expressing views on Evolution 1:09:03 Rethinking paradigms in evolutionary science 1:13:13 Respecting the integrative aspect of living organisms for disease treatment 1:15:23 Debunking of Chomsky's theory of language and limitations of AI 1:20:02 Darwin's death changed the direction of evolutionary theory. 2 Reply @DeadEndFrog 10 days ago (edited) How does one determin If the origin is purpusfull? Couldnt that evolve itself? So randomness creating purpose? Edit: basically 25:00 7 Reply 4 replies @LatinosOver40 9 days ago In summary : What is the purpose of Life? You are born.. You survive .. You reproduce .. you die .... and nobody knows why? ... LOL 5 Reply @AnswerEasy 8 hours ago Apart from the very enlightening discussion, the sociological part is quite scary. We went from a dogmatic religious clerical class blocking science for dogma, to a dogmatic reductionist and materialist clerical class blocking likewise science for dogma. Reply @SilentRunningRedux 7 days ago FANTASTIC! A conversation btwn a knowledgeable, prepared, bright interviewer with an actual SCIENTIST about profoundly important and interesting cutting edge science, placing it in context by referring to hundreds of years of science. Appreciate Denis for his past and current work; his ability to communicate with humor and respect for both colleagues and a general audience, plus the (actual) intellectual humility and epistemological uncertainty science requires. TY, to Denis, Andrea, the BBC (and YT). Those commenting have the basic education to follow this conversation, and some possess much more basis to contribute ideas here (thanks to good universities and/or perspicacious, intelligent self-education and continuing engagement with science). Not everyone sadly will have familiarity with Karl Popper, or Thomas Nagel )the latter by ref to the title of his essay “What Is It Like to Be a Bat?”). Kudos to Andrea for subtitling the screen during some of those key references (eg Karl Popper). Without historical context or familiarity with necessary concepts like epistemological uncertainty, and understanding that science is ALWAYS “ongoing,” people increasingly consume pseudoscience mistaking it for science — incl via so many tiresome, “surface” podcasts on YT, where presenter or interviewer (or both) don’t have the faintest idea what they’re talking about or the language with which to express complex ideas simply. TY! 1 Reply @charles.e.g. 10 days ago You bring such an extraordinary amount of research and understanding to these interviews. And that makes such an enormous impact on your ability to engage and ask so many fantastic questions on these complex topics. I have now watched your interview with Roger Penrose 3 times. That’s how much I love it! I can already tell that this is one that I will return to over and over again. Thank you so much for making your remarkable work available to all of us! It is such a gift!! 26 Reply Variable Minds · 3 replies @anywallsocket 10 days ago (edited) At 38:00, I have a hard time distinguishing the ‘traditional’ from Nobel’s view. Whether it is the organism inducing changes in the dna, or micro-evolution, it’s still the same processes occurring within the immune system? I don’t see how this form of ‘purpose’ creeps in here as you say it does, though perhaps someone can help clarify. 7 Reply 4 replies @paratracker 1 day ago Even after a lifetime of study, Lex Fridman can't hope to achieve the same ability to the contribute to the intellectual landscape as Andrea Morris - a benchmark journalist. I subscribed IMMEDIATELY. Reply @jamescarrico1233 7 days ago In 2015 I had the idea that random mutation and natural selection just could not account for the obviously intense specialization of organisms to their environment, ant eaters long tongues, etc. I thought, there must be an unknown mechanism by which the experiences of organisms influence the development of their respective germ line. I called it "pseudo-conscious selection" Admittedly, I didn't press down the rabbit hole very far, however I looked for any information about anyone else having this idea I even talked to a couple of biologists. Not one time did I find information on Lemarck or Nobel. 1 Reply @yanwain9454 9 days ago i want to know what this guy's diet is like to be this sharp at 87 years old 7 Reply 3 replies @DoctorDoom69 9 days ago Nothing more endearing than an smart and still mentally sharp old man haha 5 Reply 2 replies @AriM 20 hours ago "you can only get life from life"....that is a profound statement. Reply @_a.z 8 days ago Dawkins does not think that organisms are necessarily selfish. Noble completely misunderstands The Selfish Gene, which shows that it's the genes that have an appearance of selfishness while the bodies they inhabit are mere vehicles to assist their replication! 5 Reply 1 reply @D3adP00I 9 days ago Google ads really screwing this video badly 30 Reply 8 replies @aliozgurbaltaoglu 6 days ago This conjecture has a fascinating similarity with Penrose's two hypotheses Orch-OR and CCC. Could the rescaling of a conformal cyclic universe into the next aeon be reconsidered as auto-catalystic? Reply @PablumMcDump 4 days ago The creepy music underlying your explanatory monologues make it very hard not to dismiss the information as conspiratorial. If you care about reaching people sceptical to your topic, consider not playing to the stereotype. 1 Reply @De_Bars_Gullible_Travels 10 days ago Love how you interject with amazing explanation and detail inside the conversation…. This channel is my new home for real scientific research and interviews… Magic stuff!!! 8 Reply Variable Minds · 1 reply @embracethemystery 9 days ago What an amazing brain Dr. Noble has. So articulate and sharp at his age, and so kind to Andréa by really listening to her ideas and questions and responding thoughtfully and respectfully. I can't help but think that if we don't dump more money into education, we'll be hard pressed to get more brilliant minds like these. 18 Reply 3 replies @tevya017 2 days ago This computer was used at Bletchley Park and developed by Alan Turin, and constructed in part by a brilliant Post Office engineer . Reply @djayjp 9 days ago Could you please do a TLDW version that concisely summarizes his views? Thank you! 1 Reply @donaldcarter6252 10 days ago (edited) My new favorite scientific converse YouTube channel! Thank you for your contributions! 6 Reply @oliverhunter4427 9 days ago This seems noncontroversial, except where the emphasis on the 'purposiveness' of epigenetics is overstated in the service of unproven applications, eg. Trofim Lysenko's attempts to grow fruit trees in the Siberian winter. 3 Reply @wolf-uweostermann502 7 days ago We shouldn't say - with Socrates - " I know that I don't know". Instead, we should correctly say: I know that I know so little. - Because then, we'd leave enough room for learning , not "knowing" , about the rest of the whole. Denis is telling us to be conscious about the utter relativity of our so called knowledge ...something we usually seem to accept, but then, by our behaviour, contradict. In the practical application of our relative knowledge we tend to be utterly oblivious of its relativity. Great video! Reply @patinho5589 1 day ago In other words.. the mutation upon which the mechanism of natural selection can occur, isn’t just ‘random’. Reply @srussifordwilliams 9 days ago Amazing video thank you 3 Reply @jonathanloux7863 10 days ago Richard Feynman used to tell a story about his graduate students in Quantum Physics. When they started studying under him, they would eventually come to him and say something like, “Dr. Feynman. What you are teaching us doesn’t make sense. There’s no rhyme or reason to it. It just doesn’t make any sense.” Dr. Feynman would reply, “Shut up and calculate. The math works. That’s all that you’re gonna get. Don’t think about it.” Maybe the processes of evolution, like Quantum Mechanics, is beyond any physics or chemistry that we have thus far invented. It just doesn’t make sense, but there might be a theory that describes it without resorting to a higher power. Or it might be that the universe is just beyond our ability to completely understand. The Scientific Method states three things; That the natural world runs on laws, that the human mind can understand these laws, and that we can discover them using the scientific method. But how do we know these are all true? 4 Reply 6 replies @experimenter19 4 days ago Back in high school my science teacher openly admitted organism, species etc. evolving on purpose is not out of the question Needless to say i had an awesome science teacher Reply @mbrt777 7 days ago years ago i read jablonka and lambs book on evolution and i was entirely mesmerized by how much of a big picture they were capable and willing to see, so im very pleased to see that the popular opinion is now swaying in this direction of biology being entirely distinct from chemistry and physics Reply @spottery2k 9 days ago The biggest problem with arguments for intelligent design is that the evidence suggests a very poor designer, where far more instances of life suffer and perish so that a few "fittest" instances can succeed and flourish, at least until changes in the environment redefine fitness. The truth about intelligent design is that we as observers are the intelligences imposing design on a random and chaotic universe. Gnothi Seauton. 25 Reply 7 replies @user-ss4gv4pz4z 10 days ago I subscribed 7 Reply 1 reply @oliverjamito9902 9 days ago (edited) My pop Denis, thank you for attending unto our OWN! To bring clarity, coherence, adequacy.... Scattered noises! Who can Fine Tune? All scattered utterances and noises! Pop Denis, love you too! For attending unto our OWN! Pop remembering ye once born, to crawling, to walking, and till now thy feet resting upon the very tip of time in FRONT! Nothing is wasted but increase! Pop Denis thy shared "i" AM and came with sincere conversations given just for thee! Noone can pluck thee away from HIS HAND! 1 Reply @semitope 4 days ago Weird thing to fall back to when you start realizing the theory doesn't make sense as a natural process. Giving purpose to nature Reply @chrisryan2260 9 days ago (edited) Seems to be setting up a false dilemma, epigenetics and phenotypical expression, is demonsterable and well understood. I don't understand why these old men are still arguing. Granted I'm only 10 minutes in, let's hope this actually becomes interesting. 14 Reply 5 replies @jimj9040 9 days ago I’m beginning to think that the ultimate goal of scientists is to live until their hair is white and wispy and purposely neglect any form of its management. 19 Reply 3 replies @nkoppa5332 23 hours ago Purpose is still metaphysics. There will never, ever, be an experiment or theory that proves purpose. Reply @chrisxavier1848 4 days ago A whole is a purposeful arrangement of parts; so those wholes were designed. They might change over time, but that's the only evolution that happens, not molecules to life or molecules to man. 1 Reply @mygamecomputer1691 10 days ago I found this interview fascinating and genuinely enlightening. Keep up the good work. 5 Reply @chrisxavier1848 4 days ago The immune system is a great example of purposeful design, but the materialist philosophers demand that evolution be shoehorned (albeit unsuccessfully) into the process. 3 Reply @Kormac80 2 days ago I'll be giving this a second listen. Andrea does an absolutely STELLAR job of inserting definitions of terms and asking astute questions. Kudos to you Andrea. I'd love to see you interview Rupert Sheldrake. Reply @Belquer 5 days ago (edited) Became an instant fan of Denis Noble and smartest interviewer ever. They peeled the subject layer by layer. Wonderful! Reply @VidkunQL 9 days ago Five minutes in, and already the whole argument seems logically incoherent. This is the first I've heard of the Weisman barrier, but 1) I distrust the characterisation of it presented here, and 2) the logical inferences being made about it seem specious. The barrier is not clearly defined here, but from the Wikipedia article: "[H]ereditary information moves only from germline cells to somatic cells." Well, that sounds like a useful idea, and at first glance it might be true, and if so it sheds some light on how heredity works, although it doesn't bear much on how evolution works. "Why was that assumption made?" "It [may have been] a way of excluding... Lamarck." That's a strange way to put it. The barrier sounds more like a hypothesis than an assumption, and such ideas are usually put forth simply as a way to explore nature, rather than as a way to suppress an existing theory. But even if the barrier was assumed to be real for bad reasons, that has no bearing on whether the barrier is real. And going by the description of Lamarckian evolution given here, it is made difficult by the barrier, but not impossible; since we have no idea how the giraffe's reaching up leads to the creation of a new hereditary trait, for all we know that entire process could take place in the germ cells. And even if Weisman is false, so what? I sense a strong desire to argue that Lamarck is true, without evidence. Now I'm ten minutes in, and it's getting worse. Maybe someone else can find a solid argument in this video, and post a time index, but I'm not getting a good return on my investment of time, so I'm out. 4 Reply 1 reply @Jimyblues 10 days ago Everyone should watch this. The knowledge is exciting, and the video is so smooth, no interruptions, great questions, and great to see the data. 3 Reply @mickmaphari6606 7 days ago I find all this all so engrossing and enriching. I like this too, a short treatise on human evolution from the Islamic poet Rumi, written in Persian verse some six hundred years before Darwin. "I died as mineral and became vegetable I passed away as vegetation and became animal - Leaving the animal state I became man. What should I fear? When was I ever less through death? I shall once more die From humanity to soar with angels And I must pass beyond angel-hood. All perish but God. When I have given up my angel-self I shall become what no mind has conceived." Reply @neckreth 14 hours ago Very good interview with room for the subject and intelligent remarks from the host. 1 Reply @quasarsupernova9643 10 days ago How does evolution of purpose violate neodarwinism? Genes create organisms that are selected to efficiently propagate those genes and if "purpose" is a quality that serves this cause then so be it .... 4 Reply 10 replies @Nylon_riot 9 days ago What a fascinating discussion. What a brilliant man. I am going to end up watching this again. Also, well informed, great questions! Thank you. 3 Reply @whateverrandomnumber 8 days ago That is mind blowing! I would love to have a chat with this man and ask things like "do you believe in panspermia", or "What's your opinion on the Gaia hypothesis", and "What's with prions?!" 1 Reply 1 reply @markmartens 5 days ago Nicely done Andrea. Mark Martens, Accidental Scientist, Discoverer of a New Framework for Science. 1 Reply @waen606 9 days ago I’m just an interested Artist but love this discussion, two very articulate, reasonable and intelligent people ,thank you., 3 Reply @stephenking4170 10 days ago Denis' description of Dawkins' position as religious is spot on. HE is a neo-Darwinian evolution evangelist. 22 Reply 21 replies @assemhendawi5469 9 days ago That was magnificent. Thank you so much 2 Reply @epicsmashman6806 2 days ago The Weismann barrier clearly had no backing to begin with, but ascribing a "purpose" feels like playing a linguistic semantic game. It feels more like the organism develops a "use." The word purpose evokes a sense of broader meaning with just as much backing as the barrier! 1 Reply @ALavin-en1kr 10 days ago When you start with the worm’s eye view rather than a bird’s eye view it likely to be not just limited but inaccurate. Starting with the elemental, ignoring consciousness, mind, electricity, electromagnetism, and magnetism is to have a view of reality that is elemental only, which is problematic and not something we can classify as life as we know and experience it. Trying to figure out origin from the end result while being clueless of the factors from consciousness to magnetism that make up what you are making assumptions about is not going to give a coherent view of reality, although it may give some information about physical reality.. There is no valid reason to extrapolate it to be the nature and totality of reality and that is what, unfortunately, Darwinism has done. 3 Reply @gabumonboys 8 days ago The title had me worried this was some creationist bs, very glad to be wrong 3 Reply @fabiosonhandogrande1697 14 hours ago (edited) Gestures at creature that dies, oh too soon "BUT THEN WHY-?!" 1 Reply @heathenannblackcloud737 8 days ago Makes one understand how utterly unique we all are. It's magic! Reply @ZooDinghy 4 days ago (edited) "If the simplest model I created in the 1960s were correct, we would be dead" It wouldn't be the simplest model then. It would be too simple. 3 Reply 3 replies @lancestringer4964 7 days ago Dawkins would not be able to have a really serious discussion with Noble because Dawkins is way out of date as far as the past 10 years of biological science is concerned. Noble said this himself in this interview. And Dawkins knows this which is why he is OK with having a nice frothy conversation but not a serious scientific debate. 5 Reply @GeorgeSmiley77 6 days ago People get upset by the idea of complexity arising from simplicity, but the first computer program I wrote was a Game of Life simulation, and ever since I've been completely at peace with the idea of complexity emerging from simplicity. Alan Turing's Turing Machine was an early demo of the idea, but not the earliest. One of the most interesting sets of examples is Fractals, but the most interesting will always be evolution as outlined by Charles Darwin. 1 Reply 2 replies @hyperion4482 6 days ago (edited) Wow, this guy is like 1000x sharper and quicker of mind than most younger people I know. And the guy is brilliant. Let's make this guy president. Reply @kenmatheson5794 10 days ago Going to stick my neck out here, in my ignorance. Could it be as 'simple' as treating the cells with optimal vitamins and minerals to enable the cells to 'make the optimal decisions/actions' ? 5 Reply 8 replies @GhostSal 9 days ago For over 20 years I’ve been saying the idea that evolution is solely random mutations isn’t correct. The changes we often see benefit the next generations in ways that are all too perfect for “random” just to account for the changes. For example a mouse that changes color to match its new environment, how many other countless changes could have happened if it was just “random”. Yet, the change that occurs, just so happens to give the mouse much needed camouflage. There are countless examples of this. 7 Reply 13 replies @michaelkurak1012 9 days ago A purpose, in general, is an object of a concept insofar as we regard this concept as the object’s cause (the real basis of its possibility). KU 220 (Kant) Incidentally, I have no idea what you mean when you declare that Kant is wrong about the mind. What part of Kant? Reply @madeinengland1212 23 hours ago You can see the evolution of smart people’s interior design preferences right there. Reply 10 days ago (edited) intelligent design? seriously? i have no time for i.d. trying to pass as science in order to "prove" existence of a deity. 10 Reply 8 replies @quasarsupernova9643 10 days ago Richard never said "we are selfish". Selfish is a metaphor to describe the behavior of genes. Noble is too brilliant to not understand this. It is sad that he chose to purposely misrepresent what Richard said just to ridicule him. 18 Reply 13 replies @chaferraro 7 days ago This channel deserves a looooot more subs than it has. Andrea thinking processes and daring questions are a sight to behold. Well done, lady! Reply @blackthai5023 9 days ago (edited) Brilliant open minded, lovely guy respect.Thanks for the introduction to him and his work 1 Reply @ProfGregTuckerKellogg 8 days ago Interesting interview, but frankly neither the clickbait title nor the clickbait thumbnail is remotely true. (Likewise, the Forbes article is remarkably off-base.) And I say that with nothing but respect for Noble's contributions in systems biology and physiology. Scientists are definitely not thinking that evolution may be purposeful, and therefore not freaking out about the possibility. Noble (and Andrea Morris, both here and in Forbes) are badly over-interpreting the polygenic risk score analysis. It will be very unfortunate indeed if some people remember Noble for his misguided ideas in this area rather than his seminal contributions in physiology and biophysics. 38 Reply Variable Minds · 30 replies @calvingrondahl1011 10 days ago (edited) Evolution is a simple honest system. Creationism is an ego trip for humans. A hybrid idea may be closer to the truth. 5 Reply 4 replies @Scoring57 6 days ago (edited) Why do you want him so badly to say that cells are conscious? He didn't say they are, so in a way he does think we're special *Cognitive like Ai, that's what he says. That's very different from "consciousness", everyone knows Ai is not conscious. You should pursue the truth not try to bend things to fit a perspective you wish or suspect is true 2 Reply @kaydgaming 1 day ago (edited) This is a theory that recontextualizes metaphysics, and its role in all life. It states that the metaphysic applies value to itself through analysis and and empirical evidence executed towards a purpose Reply @SnakeWasRight 9 days ago So... Denis Noble is NOT an evolutionary biologist, so he's out of his field, and runs a WEBSITE, not actual scientific experiments. This is woo. 4 Reply 1 reply @malikialgeriankabyleswag4200 10 days ago God is real boys 11 Reply 14 replies @commonsenseotis3360 5 days ago You literally contradicted the title in the video. If his peers are disagreeing then it's not the whole scientific community, just one scientist Reply @MrGustavier 4 days ago Isn't the additional mechanism that Darwin was looking simply epigenetics ? 1 Reply @loicgrossetete9570 4 days ago The use of the word purpose which is very loaded is damaging the take I think. Most of the underlying ideas are probably right 1 Reply @onyxstone4618 11 hours ago Thank you Andrea for explaining terms in detail. 1 Reply @bhocatbho 7 days ago Who is Dawkings: " he is a very skilled debater, so he goes off in another direction. Very convincing, if you don't realize he has'nt answered the question". Brilliant. Reply @patinho5589 1 day ago “The subconscious mind of a bird knows more about biology than the conscious mind of any human being” George King. Reply @-Pol- 7 days ago Scientists don't freak out - They say "That's interesting, what makes this observation so?" Reply @NovaLightAngel 4 days ago What an incredible view and perspective! I am truly honored to be able to enjoy this extended free form interview with this living Genius. Thank you Andréa for putting this story together, and thank you to Denis for this very profound insistence on how these systems are truly working. I've long held that "survival of the fittest" was a dramatic misnomer, and that we are all dealing with our current biosphere and local stimulus. That feedback loop is evolution, the drive to change, to adjust to the circumstances. I appreciate both of you so much for publishing this and validating those claims! The true pursuit of science. <3 Reply @TashiRogo 9 days ago This discussion was crazy good. Thank you. 1 Reply @ws6778 5 hours ago (edited) Guess you really do have to see the trees in the context of the florest: Gaianism just entered the chat 1 Reply @jrettetsohyt1 8 days ago 1. Stochastic generation of possibilities. 2. Boundaries/filters that select for a subset of the possibilities. 3. A feedback mechanism by which the Stochastic generator is directed to generate that subset of possibilities which pass the filter. X. Are systems irreducibly complex? Reply @JosephMatino 2 days ago I wish it gets more attention. Thanks i have been imagining the same idea 1 Reply @phaneserichthoneus8895 5 days ago Evolution is actually driven by the spirit, and the goal is physical immortality. Reply @Bllackdog 6 days ago Brilliant. Im blown by that video. It was such a pleasure to listen to you two. Dr. Nobel and his expertise, his intuition and understanding, just like his point of view or even his kindness in how he speaks in this video is exceptional inspiring for me. Also, Andrea... how quickly she understood what he was saying or referring to, just like her precise rewrapping and further deepening of the spoken. No doubt, you literally feel by watching the video how much knowledge both of them carry. Im actually excited. Haven't seen any video before but it's an instant sub, follow, alarm. Thank you for this. 1 Reply @patsilverfang 4 days ago (edited) The more I learn about modern science the more amused I am by things that have been thrown out because they were unreproducible while much of modern science is itself based on unproven and un-producible theories. Entire careers, schools and generations of people are taught, unproven theories as though they're fact! Reply @davidlamb7524 8 days ago I think there is some confusion about the word ' purpose'. because some adaptation serves a purpose it doesn't mean it was done on purpose ie with intent. 1 Reply @chrisxavier1848 4 days ago There is no purpose without pre-existing knowledge. We theists are exactly correct to recognise that that knowledge had to come from an intelligent, transcendent Creator. Reply 1 reply @grumpycheerleader 9 days ago “It’s the Whole that gives the purpose to the Parts.” 1 Reply @jbaguetta 7 days ago I don't know about consciousness but I always found the notion that evolution just explains living things wrong. In my book evolution means, what doesn't fall apart stays in existence. Could be autocatalytic processes, molecules, assemblies of all kinds, living organisms, even ideas that transport across generations and possibly even natural laws. There's a specific environment in which things fall into a specific configuration. As time goes on the natural process is to add abstraction layers like the game of life inside the game of life or more practically: Unknown base layer > Natural Laws > Particles > Atoms > Molecules > Autocatalytic processes > Proteins > Cells > Bacteria > ... > Neural Nets > Humans > Thoughts > Intergenerational Knowledge > Societies > Artificial Silicone Species > and so on. Time seems proportional to those "abstraction shells" meaning each layer that stands the test of time for long enough will inevitably emerge into an even higher order. Maybe that law is even fundamental. Reply @marymcfarlane5108 8 days ago Remarkable. Excellent interview. More or less as an aside, I found it very satisfying that Dr. Noble articulated the discomfort I’ve always felt with Richard Dawkins. Reply @Fahrenheit4051 7 days ago (edited) Regarding whether "purpose" is an emergent property, wouldn't that depend on whether laws of physics merely allowed life to develop, or necessitated it? If determinism is true (which I am presently unsure about), wouldn't that mean our existence was planned? Then, whether or not the process that gave rise to us is/was a singular consciousness is a separate question. Reply @edwardhanson3664 2 days ago Science, being science, is also an evolutionary process. Reply @ImRaHorakhty 7 days ago That man has an incredible intalect and rationale. From a layman's perspective, it is fascinating to listen to him, and I believe the interviewer has done an incredible job. Perhaps her intelect is on par. Well done! Reply @davemullins8266 7 days ago What gets tried in terms of evolving purpose is dependent heavily on the energy required for something to be tried. Reply @SimplyHuman186 4 days ago Cause and effect. No such thing as random. There is only reason. Nothing can happen without operating by design. Devine mother nature. 1 Reply @stevenswitzer5154 8 days ago It is purposeful... Its purpose is to make organisms better at surviving. Important note: Just because something has purpose does not mean it has agency Reply @mikeb927 5 days ago Mr. Noble is spot on. What he says makes sense and he explains so all can understand. Thankyou so much for the videos. Reply @Video2Webb 7 days ago I watched the whole of this video, and loved it. Made a comment on the day I watched which was just 3 days ago. Why does YouTube now show that I only watched a fragment at the start of the video, i.e. a partial red line at the bottom of the video thumbnail? I want my statistic of watching it to be truely recorded, not botched by YouTube. Any tips most welcome to solve this problem which I have seen with other, many other, videos I have watched from start to finish. Could it be that I did frequent rewinds a few seconds to listen twice or three times, to certain comments made by Denis Noble? Reply @TheGariego 7 days ago He seems to be going out of his way to avoid even contemplating the possibility of design by a higher consciousness. 1 Reply @NanHutcheson 1 day ago Hi from NZ again. The perception problem began when Anaxamanda took over from Thales of Miletus. Thales informed Aristotle (when he was inventing western science) that water was the essence of all things. This gives the nonlinear conceptual model of a river, divisible but continuous and shaped by context. Anaxamander was a numbers guy, leading to the many triumphs and tragedies of science. We like the numbers game because it sooths our focused brain (we count sheep to sleep). Studies with ants show neural bilateralism to be evolution's answer to managing input/output. Input is context and output is focus. The ants sensory input (right brain) holds long-term memories. Evolution passes good ideas down or around, or if the context requires it, reinvents them. So we find a scent, a song or a sight can transport us decades in an instant, no conscious (left brain) thought involved. The input brain is mute - but knows context, without which all is meaningless. The random context of the numbers tools is not reality. Reality is continual environmental variation, which life buffers with water. This process enables life to apparently defy the unbreakable second law of thermodynamics. It can 'run up' because it is always 'running down' toward equilibrium. The moon is our particular proximate powerhouse. All organisms are aware of their environment and exhibit problem solving behavior. They may not solve the problem (as related in Fabre's essay of the sacred beetle), but then, neither do we much of the time. The charge of anthropomorphism is itself invalid because it simply denies any other perspective while ignoring both observation and evolution. We are what came before. Reply @tikaanipippin 9 days ago (edited) Everything is capable of emergent properties: Water can be water, a liquid, and remain a liquid when having dissolved some soluble entity under some change of external conditions. if those conditions are, say, high pressure and temperature, and the soluble entity in this case ammonia, has a lower vaporization temperature than water, under changing conditions, water can cease to be liquid, and at low temperatures can freeze solid, or at low pressure can become a foam, or at low temperatures, and low pressures, it can become explosive becoming a powder and as the soluble entity escapes as a gas. All these properties are emergent, none are biological. No organism is a unitary identity, but a product of it's evolution, and it may never be possible to trace the natural history of that evolution. Like in cosmology or archaeology, evolutionary history is not complete, there are gaps that we may not be able to synthesise the missing evidence. To require or attribute a purpose for a system is teleology, ending in theology, not science. Science attempts to explain, not confuscate. 2 Reply @lyleswanson7557 8 days ago Basically what he is talking about is that every organism is its own laboratory. Reply @ABG1788 9 days ago Subbed, such interesting guest, and really interesting questions. !!! good work 2 Reply @dianasaur2131 8 days ago Giraffes are long legged tall, they also drink water, water is on the ground if you're tall you need to have a body design that allows you to drink the water lying in pools on the ground. Most browsers aren't tall, and many climb. Giraffes need to run and cover large distances, and much of their food is shrubs and bushes, and fallen fruits. Reply @Fahrenheit4051 7 days ago 52:50 - Noble believes purpose began with the envelopment of autocatalytic processes in a membrane. Why is a membrane necessary for purpose? It certainly concentrate purpose into a small area and makes it more efficient. But as with the slime mold example, even though the individual cells are encased in a membrane, the whole system is able to accomplish purposeful goals without a permanent spatial boundary. Reply @dimitrioskatelouzos2947 5 days ago Dr Noble is like water from the fountain! But also the lady is doing a remarkable job in interviewing him! Excellent job! Listening to the interview it struck me that we are talking about chaos theory and highly non-linear systems with so many parameters that is blowing my head off! Reply @simianbarcode3011 7 days ago I was skeptical that the title was just clickbait, or "sneakily" trying to promote Creationism, but I'm glad I watched through this whole interview. Well explained and well handled by the both of you. I fully agree that Science is best when we challenge previous assumptions about reality, and put them to the test against alternate models. I also understand why the overall scientific community has been hesitant to fully consider these ideas. "Harnessing stochasticity" and the idea that an organism, or even a cell, could influence its own genes/epigenetics from the top-down, is truly fascinating. Looking forward to learning more about this and seeing how well it stands over time. Reply @paulperkins1615 8 days ago (edited) The title "Science Is Reconsidering Evolution" is misleading. The Theory of Evolution is doing just fine, and proof of that is that scientists are continuing to refine it by adding detail and nuance to our understanding of the biochemical mechanisms by which biological evolution operates. Discussions about the applicability of ideas like purpose, intention, and intelligence to evolution are legitimate in the academic field of Philosophy, or if you are so inclined, Theology. But trying to make those ideas part of the Theory of Evolution is the kind of shoddy thinking that led to horrors like Social Darwinism in the past. 2 Reply 5 replies @Earth_to_Kensho...ComeInKensho 7 days ago I saw what you did there!"The fact you used cholesterol as an example for Fred was brilliant! I just discovered your channel.I'm really grateful I found you this way. Thank U Google AI !!!! This is a very important video but I already know it would never change one particular, very rigid mind I know. I'm going to ask a friend to show this video to someone who will figure out a way to deny this. I love your channel already! Reply @Wanderfill 7 days ago First time I've watched this channel. Fantastic job by both both of you. Really great work. 1 Reply @duckonquack0o013 7 days ago This is the way we should take care of AI other than bashing it with our ideas Reply @harlanmueller7499 6 days ago It is very interesting to hear that Dawkins was unable to understand the explanation given by Dr. Noble Reply @PlatinumRatio 3 days ago damn this was good. Big thanks! 2 Reply @TheStarflight41 7 days ago (edited) The alleged mechanism for common ancestry; random copying errors of the DNA as a creative and reliable process is absurd. The theory is being artificially sustained by a worldview. 1 Reply 1 reply @anned6913 7 days ago Amazing ! I just don't understand how a true scientist can refuse to allow a conversation about different opinions/ideas/hypothesis to their own. Thank you so much for expanding my thoughts. Reply @brunoB1980 9 days ago Dawkins: "That is, as it is" - Noble: "Nah, there is more on it!" 1 Reply @tgenov 9 days ago (edited) Paradigm shifts are so wonderful. It's a shame we allowed the reductionists at the wheel for so long. How is it not common sense to anyone who posesses the ability to self-reflect that a bunch of biological systems purposefully studied their surroundings, created a theory, and then used their own understanding of this theory to self-direct their own evolution. We are trying to understand the system in order to game it to our advantage. No other organizm does this! Reply @helmutgensen4738 3 days ago Love you Denis! Great interview Andrea! Beautiful cascade of young old feminine masculine perspectives of purpose and intelligence. Reply @Merlijnvv 7 days ago (edited) The harnessing of stochasticity... at 50:30.. this made me think about resilience and producing a system of stability and in extension, adaptability. So that it can become more functional in a broader sense, because it can stabilise under multiple circumstances. If a system, or production line, gets its stability from a multitude of factors and a multitude of values, then the variability (the extremes) of one value or even of a set values does not hamper the system functionality as a whole. It regains its balance quickly. Purpose and individuality... a robot , a production line, a cell is such a unit. A robot is made to serve one or more purposes. Though it does not know its own purpose, the fact that it can function in a coherent manner as a single unit, shows that it has purpose. The purpose the developer of the robot knows of. In a way we are that robot, and we don't realise the workings and the purpose of the entire biochemical individual inside of us. Instead of a developer we deal with the functionalities of life itself, but with our meta mind that seems to exist separate of it, like a meta individual that does not kow its own inner workings. Reply @benearle271 15 hours ago This is great, fantastic and thoughtful interview. Noble's absolutely right about Dawkins position, wether right or wrong, be behaves dogmatically and that has always made me sceptical of his work - if you are dogmatic you become selective in your evidence and that leads to incorrect conclusions. Frankly I've never really understood his appeal in scientific circles, he's more like a secular preacher. Reply @y.tzvilangermann7894 6 days ago One of the best talks on the internet ever, BTW, at the beginning Dr Noble mentions early computers that were made up of many “valves”. In the USA we call them “tubes” or “vacuum tubes”. They function as transistors. Reply @manethen1 4 days ago Ok I'm only 13mn in, and this is just awesome. I feel like scientists are finally understanding what the concept of "system" implies. Objects that are inside a system are defined by objects surrounding them. Take one of these out of the system, and it disappears. Or it becomes something else. The idea of identity is far different from what western philosophies and sciences have believed so far. We've been stuck in an essentialist approach to things. Of course an individual cannot be replicated precisely as it was. The number of variables surrounding us in the everyday life, forming what we are at a given time and point in space, is so astonishingly high that we would never be able to reunite them all a second them on purpose. I really wish people would give more time to understand the implication of the concept of "system". It even works right now, for us, fully formed individuals. "There is no empire inside the empire" implies that even an individual - which is itself a system - is always, systematically, at any time, influenced by similar systems around (other individuals, for say), or larger systems. Hard sciences really need to work on this ontological problem and stop considering that objects have an essence. The fact that you attack the reductionist posture is amazing too. Anyway, I'm really enjoying this interview, and I have to say, your quality as an host is incredible, the best I've ever seen. Reply @thekeymaker2289 10 hours ago Interesting. If we can extend his views on social domain, his views represents collectivism while social darwinism represents individualism/tribalism. Fun fact: stalin was supporting lamarck's theories Reply @rajahua6268 7 days ago I am so please with the probing questions from the younger mind. Respect to Mr Noble for unselfish act to not jeopardising his department and its fellow researchers/staffs. Keep it up. Great interview! Reply @Alexandra-uk4vr 9 days ago I've certainly been blessed by the algorithm tonight. Truly insightful interview. Thank you subscribed! 1 Reply @Achrononmaster 5 days ago (edited) @31:10 very unfair to people of genuine faith here, to compare them with Dawkins. All those characteristics are anti-religion. Religion is a source of "The Good." When perverted it becomes all the more the opposite. no matter what you call it (christian fascism = anti-religion). So much so that today it is hard to find a valid religion. Possibly are none that have remained uncorrupted. Science is also a source of The Good, but by definition not a religion, since science does not predict nor pronounce upon moral and ethical truth, nor on metaphysics. Science only exploits metaphysics, and then only minimally so (the principle of sufficient reason, parsimony, etc.). 1 Reply @ututut77 10 hours ago nobles‘s use of the word purpose is similar to dawkins‘ use of the word selfish. they both can be taken in a religious sense but they both don’t intend it that way 1 Reply 1 reply @tomhenninger4153 3 days ago Evolution is correct. Thx for the video! 1 Reply @kcowgirl7840 7 days ago What occurs when a body dies? Having been present at a person's death, there is a remarkable moment when the body is enlivened and a moment when it is not. According to Noble, what has occurred? Reply @Blizznor 9 days ago most people his age are mushed brained, props to my dawg Denis. 1 Reply @sordidknifeparty 7 days ago Saying that there will never be two humans with identical genetics is like saying they will never be too snowflakes which are identical. There's a statistical chance that a person is identical to another person which means that in the long enough run there will be individuals with identical genes. Reply @petercrossley1069 4 days ago Can you bring Michael Levy together with Noble to discuss their respective holistic views of the organism. Reply @nimged8952 3 days ago Really dislike the clickbaity text on the thumbnail. 1 Reply 1 reply @howardsiegel1011 8 days ago I don't understand how we can explain our physiology as a collective of different cells that come together to become us if each of those cells derives from 1 common pluripotent cell. Reply @Achrononmaster 6 days ago @14:00 it's not just 3 billion base pairs combinatorics (which would exceed the number of organisms that will ever exist in our expanding universe if Λ>0 by a truly vast amount, almost unimaginable) . Spacetime matters too, the metric structure and dynamical biology. These genetic determinists seem to completely ignore dynamics, if so then they're a joke. The way chemical reactions happen, the distances, the timings, all matter for who you turn out to be phenotypically and otherwise. The combinatorics for organism diversity are thus incredibly more vast than even Noble makes out. If spacetime is a genuine continuum then the combinatorics would be genuinely transfinite, and an uncountable infinity moreover. Escaping strict Poincaré recurrence (should our universe cycle in some way). 1 Reply @CaptainSteve777 7 days ago Every apparent evolutionary step can easily be explained by intelligent design. Any good design should account for adaptation. 1 Reply @Ferkiwi 7 days ago If "purpose" is generated from evolution, like he said (in 25:54), then that implies that evolution existed FIRST, and only later (as an effect) purpose emerged FROM it... this does not mean that purpose is what drives evolution, but rather the opposite, that evolution is what drives purpose. I think he's drawing the wrong conclusions, I don't see how this challengues NeoDarwinism. 1 Reply 1 reply @nickleby77 6 days ago This video made a subscriber out of me. Very well researched and put together. I appreciate how you went back and forth from the interview to explain and go deeper on the points being discussed. That is a lot of work but I appreciate your thoroughness. Reply @Isomorphist 2 days ago Finally the algorithm is fuxjing hitting it mang 1 Reply @robyn-lee-INFJ 7 hours ago (edited) 58:06 is a pass phase and then she slams a great invasive insight. . Very good one. She is very on spot from hear on out. She asks and she by asking added some sort of insecurity he was never not prepared for. Reply @ericanker9049 4 days ago This was very interesting. I can not help thinking about the biologist Michael Levin and his work. He is arguing that each of us is "a collective intelligence of groups of cells". In his conversation with Curt Jaimungal "Michael Levin: Consciousness, Cognition, Biology, Emergence" he is refering to Noble's work. Could be interesting to get a conversational connection there. Reply @davidpalmer5966 15 hours ago A great conversation that aired some fundamental aspects of existence. I admired the mutual respect. Thank you. Reply @lesliecunliffe4450 1 day ago There is a fallacy in Denis Noble's analogy between cognitive-based evolution and AI. The latter has been designed by human agents. We have no scientific way of understanding how the former came into being. Unlike scientific theories, stories aren't based on causal explanations. Reply @crucifixgym 5 days ago 8:49 I’ll be using that expression a lot more now, thank you. Reply @klaushermann6760 5 days ago Good to see they're trying it, but God is the explanation. 1 Reply @hendrikbarboritsch7003 4 days ago If I understand correctly, Lamarck, even before Darwin's thesis, proposed a kind of accelerated evolution whereby a father might inherited to his child certain properties which he had acquired, or was striving to achieve. I wonder if this also applies to acquired knowledge, for example having an "instinct" for which plants/animals are poisonous. Or that ancient memories get passed on somehow... Reply @johnhoward2404 9 days ago I’ve just acquired “Dance to the Tune of Life” and I hope it clarifies the notion of “purpose”… we have to agree on a definition. If the “whole” determines the purpose without consciousness of any sort, I would have to assume it’s something like “the whole finds the best-available environment (biggest bang for the buck in terms of surviving and thriving) and makes the maintenance of that environment the goal of its existence, in the sense that it makes itself both adapt to the environment, and helps the environment stay stable. Unlike humans, who seem to have adopted the purpose of making themselves go extinct. Reply @williamhall6358 6 days ago “Purpose” is thus species or even “variant” specific I.e. following a specific evolutionary thread? .. if indeed “purpose” is evolutionary. One thread’s purposeful outcome quite different from another but both in service of sustaining the existence of the thread. Now the thread may then also be deemed both at level of organism as a whole and at molecular level. Reply @Giantcrabz 9 days ago If it has goals, it has some explaining to do 1 Reply @prismatis_TV 2 days ago such a lovely dialogue the universe/reality can be seen as a 'perfect' self regulating system that thrives on 'compassion' Reply @Raydensheraj 8 days ago "Proteus syndrome? A vitalism like woo woo made the body do it on purpose!!!!!" - Denis Noble Reply @juliangrandvallet5359 6 days ago Awesome interview and questions!!! Waiting for the talk with Dr. Joana Reply @fredrickcampbell8198 6 days ago 1:11:11 I think the way to disambiguate between assumptions and facts are to state the assumptions. That said, when a student is learning material, most are probably not going to bother. Reply @menarpamukcu6463 6 days ago Thank you for the lecture. It is very nice to learn from open minded people who base their understanding on research and cite them in their speech also who are brave enough to be able to say "I have no idea" for certain issues and "I might be wrong". Reply @thomasdow701 3 days ago This may be absolutely insane to propose, but is there a definitive way to say the universe doesn't have a method of changing similarly to organic systems? That space doesn't have it's own biophysiology? Reply @rappar9673 6 days ago (edited) Here is my per-watch comment: life does have a "purpose", it's to maintain the replication of the DNA molecule. It's an emergent and necessarily logical property of life: a type of life that promotes self-deletion, would not be around anymore. It is the only way, or life would be "not"! It does not imply a "designer", it implies that the laws of physics are working just fine. Therefore, the process of life is "intelligent', in the sense that inanimate matter logically determines beneficial outcomes through trial and error. As we all know, "intelligence" does not imply "awareness", nor "cognition": machines act logically and intelligently according to the goals we purposed them for, and according to the input conditions they face, in other words, they are algorithmical, but that does not imply that an intelligent machine is a conscious machine. 1 Reply @olexalex8874 6 days ago Purpose, is a highly polysemous word. I don't even understand what it means Evolution to have 'purpose'. Reply @GnosticSeeker369 7 days ago THANKYOU - I HAVE SAID THIS SINCE I WAS A CHILD!!! THANKYOU NOBLE Now I have the science to back my intuitive argument LeMarc ? Man… Why did nobody show me about him!? Reply @alantasman8273 7 days ago “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our text- books have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." – Stephen Jay Gould …paleontologist. Reply @marcelofolhas 4 days ago is there some more literature about this? got interested, but i dont think i actually got it Reply @lenr7068 6 days ago To keep it simple. This is a "boom, mind" interview. Great job ma'am Reply @sazajac77z 5 days ago Excellent post-interview editing. Subscribed. Reply @svendtang5432 1 day ago lol I’m so sorry .. if it’s purposeful it’s a bad way to do it… with mass extinction by bacteria , blind alleys that go dead … But the purpose could be just to survive… people that is not a purpose in the sense we think of it… it’s not directed 1 Reply @Peachcreekmedia 4 days ago I think the physical sciences and the metaphysical sciences operate separate of each other currently. At some point they will overlap. As a theologian l think that where that happens is where what we call God is. 1 Reply @real_pattern 8 days ago the key to understanding all this is to understand that all noble is talking about is 'weak' emergence. empirically, life is just a cluster of molecules going beep-boop. now, it's interesting because we need the explanatory levels of biology, psychology and sociology over physics and chemistry, but it's still just molecules going beep-boop according to known physical laws. the difference that makes a difference is the complexity. more is different. more molecules together arrange in novel configurations and do stuff that just doesn't happen or can't be predicted from studying isolated molecules. but no molecule is doing anything that's not conforming to simple physical laws. but when there are more interactions, more parts, more relationships, unpredictable novelty occurs. but it's all still a kind of 'epiphenomena' of physics. so if anywhere, the explanation of why all the complexity is happening, is in physics. the special sciences above physics are more descriptive, but they don't explain life, because all the molecules only ever do what they can, which is just physics. the novel configurations of complex systems are cool, but don't 'cause' or influence anything, they just emerge, they just are, as inert ornaments. Reply @waylonbarrett3456 8 days ago (edited) It seems like there's confusion here because it's easy to forget how useful predicting the future can be. Even imperfectly predicting what happens next can be very useful. Any biological/chemical system that can, even imperfectly, "foresee" the imminent changes in its local environment can have an advantage over those which cannot. This will favor systems that are sensitive to the right cues that help them avoid the destabilizing force of entropy upon their order. If we are not careful, we will mistake these sophistications as evidence of "purpose", forgetting all those "attempts" that failed. Look into the free energy principle, active inference, and Michael Levin's work to get a deeper understanding of what I'm talking about. Reply @stevenwhite8937 8 days ago As soon as you begin to realize life was designed to adapt, it won’t confuse you any more Reply 2 replies @chrisxavier1848 4 days ago Good question Kid. They take consciousness out of it because consciousness means intelligent source capable of cognition OR programmed response which, again goes right back to intelligent source. Reply @peekaydesign451 8 days ago I’m not a scientist but am fascinated by these concepts. What an intelligent and well presented interview this was that drew out some very powerful concepts from Prof Noble in ways that were intelligible even to a non-scientist like myself. One of the best interviews I’ve seen, top marks Andrea! Reply @oliverjamito9902 9 days ago Walking with my pop Richard having sincere conversations= Reply @williamjmccartan8879 8 days ago (edited) Thank you both very much for sharing your time and work, Denis, and Andrèa, saved this to a library I've been building for several years, very cool, peace If you're curious about the library I can share a link, and decide for yourself if you want to let it stay or pull it out, peace Reply @Zenoithegreek 8 days ago What a wonderful discussion and what a great job Andrea does to get the best out of Noble. Reply @TheOfficialKIKI 3 days ago I struggle to see how a plant that produces, say, something like seeds that cling onto animals for dispersal, can be considered to be done with a purpose or intent. I am not exactly trying to debunk this with one simple counterexample, however, even at the genetic level, I don't see how gene mutations can be "favored" ,let's say, by the cell in order to produce these seeds. I can perhaps be more inclined to see this when the organism can sense an advantage, but a plant has no way of detecting that this mechanism of sticky seeds is advantageous. Right?... Reply @stephenm9199 1 day ago Wow I loved this video! First of yours that I’ve seen. You ask really great questions and give the person time and mental space to answer :). Subscribed! Reply @charleswood2182 8 days ago There is something more miraculous going on with exactness from stochasticity, as in how comes it that changing sensory signal charge trans-morphs into into adaptive sensory imagery. If you look at Coppola and Purves 1996, and Purves et al 2015 on a new paradigm for vision: the morphing is instant. That means acausal, since instant or simultaneous definitions make the idea of duration for instant a non sequitur. Collapse of charge's wave function by definition is instant objective reduction. The 2015 article suggests is charge's frequencies which matter to visual imagery. So yes, instant exactness from objective reduction. C. G. Jung suggested the psychoid as where body and mind meet, and Jung conjectured that acausal synchronicity was of the psychoid. I can show such is the case for sensation; not a process or function, but acausal synchronicity as mediating between the physical stimuli and our imagery for them. Reply @jamesdean1143 7 days ago Amazing that brilliant minds like this from a bygone age still exist. Reply @juliuswambete9504 5 days ago I think at micro-level, it is energy inputs and outputs in form of signals and interactions that create atomic and or molecular configurations and forms. Reply @andreasbillqvist2489 8 days ago But macroevolution still involves mass extinction events that blow away most of what microevolution has accumulated Reply @maxavail 9 days ago 50:53 I think it makes sense to say that the delimitation between purpose and non-purpose is in the presence of intent, which signals volition, which signals awareness and personal identity. Cognition can exist without a persona, but intent cannot. If evolution harnesses stochasticity for a given purpose and evolution is a product of the universe's constraints acting on free matter and energy, then ultimately the question draws back to was there an intent behind setting universal constraints on stochasticity to the point where it could be harnessed? If that intent is being assumed, then it's a step closer to inferring a personal Creator for the universe. If the intent is not being assumed, we'd have a very hard time explaining the presence of these constraints. Reply @eirecoleen 8 days ago It's this simple: If there's a beginning to the universe("big bang"), then there has to be a Beginner-& w/the complexity of DNA(code/language)& epigenetics("adaptation"), then a designer/Creator God must have made it all. Bc the chances of evolution/Chaos theory, "making" it, are Nil- 1 Reply @leslielandberg5620 4 days ago Consciousness is the rule of the universe, not the exception. And if you don’t grant that the whole of the cosmos is alive, you’ll work much harder to make sense of the mechanisms of life. Reply @garateaser 8 days ago The guy is right, he just lacks on arguments derived from mathematics, psychology and philosophy. Reply @rickwrites2612 3 days ago (edited) It's fascinating but it's still evolution! I always thought Dawkins was always a bit reductive re just everything subservient to gene replication at all times. Obviously thats part of it but he presents it like the organism and species just automatons. We can expand our understanding of evolution in terms of mechanisms in addition to natural selection, sexual selection, etc. But! Please don't use outrageous titles that imply scientists are rethinking whether evolution is real. Not only will it confuse the zealots (putting us back where we started) but alot of ppl who accept the reality of evolution (in all its mechanisms) will not click on it thinking its some attempt at debunking evolution. I almost didn't. 1 Reply @Hermanhusband 9 days ago -1:12:50 she’s wrong! Genes don’t drive evolution, evolution drives genes. 1 Reply @AquariusGate 7 days ago 45:09 i would i would love to hear a conversation between Dennis and Karl Friston. Karl's stochastic research in neuroscience seems harmonious with Dennis's stream of awareness. Reply @piotrleszczynski5744 8 days ago I did not get it what his point is. I did not hear a single argument i could understand. There is something called epigenetics, but does it have any connection to what he said? Reply @abduazirhi2678 8 days ago Thanks for sharing this great video. Dennis Noble is a legend. His ability to express complex topics in simple terms is remarkable. Reply @Achrononmaster 5 days ago @36:30 that confusion about the Central Dogma of MB and the Weismann barrier could use a bit of category theory functorial thinking? It might pay, in other words, to think about maps from generic molecules to cells, i.e., not worry too much about what specific molecules and molecular types are involved (a set theoretic notion) but focus instead on the processes or functions. Protein sequence translation into nucleic acid sequences seems a dubious translation to worry about. It is the effect of the whole system on organism development that one needs to think about. The nitty gritty molecular level details are more like letters in a sentence rather than words or whole sentences.... essential but largely meaningless on their own. Reply @konstantinos777 7 days ago (edited) This video took me 12 hours to watch! More please. Reply @chrisxavier1848 4 days ago And it's not just structural but also functional complexity. Reply @Robert-hz9bj 1 day ago (edited) 28:44 See, this is where the argument gets a little muddled for me, philosophy-wise. What precisely is the practical distinction between an emergent system "choosing" from an array of random strategies to see what works out and a completely blind system just acting in a random fashion? Also, what exactly does he mean by "choice" in this context? I would have to imagine that, if cellular "cognition" was a real thing, it would not be the same as what we normally think of as cognition in a classical sense. Maybe I'm just missing the point or misinterpreting, but his definition of "purpose" and "choice" does not seem to vary, in any meaningful sense, from "pure randomness." Reply @smoss9813 1 day ago A wonderful interview, truly. The additional notes and explanations were SO useful. Thank you Reply @onghuttau 8 days ago A very admirable man and an excellent presenter/interviewer. Just wondering why the more recent, stunning experiments of Michael Levin and his collaborators at Tufts University on embryogenesis and bio-electricity are nowhere mentioned as these convincingly underscore Denis Noble's general thesis and are moving forward fast in providing new experimental and theoretical underpinnings for it. Reply @cpklapper 7 days ago How does this relate to Alfred North Whitehead’s concepts of “organism” and “apprehension”? Reply @xlntnrg 22 minutes ago (edited) The Selfish Gene: Self = mind, consciousness, intelligence - "Self" doesn't make sense in any other context. When evolutionists try to explain how evolution works they constantly, apparently without realizing it, use terms and analogies that are directly associated with mind, consiousness and intelligence. And recent research clearly demonstrates that the genes are controlled by consciousness. "Materialism is the philosophy of the subject that forgets to take account of itself." - Arthur Schopenhauer Reply @Roguescienceguy 7 days ago To be clear...No, we absolutely not question evolution. A combination of outside pressures and genetic mistakes that proved beneficial is what it will probably all come down to. Let's not give the bloody creationists a stone to throw with Reply @atpugsada 2 days ago This is such a great conversation. Thank you! Reply @johnhoward2404 9 days ago If I understand correctly, a group of molecules come together in some manner and form a whole; the whole derives a purpose in some manner; then the whole drives the evolution of the parts to more effectively support that purpose. In this way the parts create the whole and the whole creates the parts? Reply @KaiWatson 6 days ago I read quite a bit and I'm super into System Theory/Cybernetics/Systems Thinking (I still love Stafford Beer even after the thing in Chile) and I had remembered reading somewhere about how heart oscillations were dynamical, robust, and, "self motivated." Having, "round the source of the fountain" I'm so excited to find another, "great mind." It's like learning about Alan Kay and Ted Nelson all over again! Kudos and thanks. Reply 1 reply @yarigatake2864 4 days ago Andrea, thank you for this interview ! But there was something that was very distracting, and I think is actually risky, that I want to warn you about. You touch your face, especially around and on your mouth, quite a lot. That's a really good way to introduce bacteria and viruses and other microbes, so, try to avoid that habit. Rather, try to to develop a habit of not touching your face reflexively. Reply @aivkara 9 days ago Funnily enough, it turns out that high LDL cholestrol levels are not linked to heart disease. See the latest Harvard study. They were unable to find a link. I appears that low LDL levels that are too low are more of an indicator for all-cause mortality. Loved the video, but this one point is not valid. Reply @stephensmith6524 9 days ago (edited) A colloquialism, “the ghost in the machine,” came up. It is very noteworthy, that there is a book with the same name written by Arthur Koestler. Koestler’s view about holons and the holarchy is not a form of dualism, it is as far from dualism as one can be. It is only that cognitive agents require three levels of description, and cannot be arbitrarily represented by an autocatalytic set that is simulated on a computer that faithfully represents a forward causation that maps out on a slice (of zero thickness) of a 4-dimensional space-time geometry. Rather, the agent and its relations are all defined by durations and distances of actual space-time and these cannot be flattened out like a surface feature (the slice of space-time geometry); hence, we have purpose. I would argue that Koestler’s view provides a better foundation for the new biology, rather than a process theory that is still stuck on forward causation (the computer simulation on a Turing machine) that makes other forms of causation redundant. Reply @caspargroenen4363 8 days ago Very elaborative. Very nice interview. Thx. Reply @cinemaclips4497 8 days ago No, they aren't. Just finding a couple of physicists who are geocentrists doesn't mean they are reconsidering general relativity or that if you find a couple of physicists who are flat earthers means that scientists are reconsidering whether the earth is round. Reply @benjamindees 9 days ago (edited) That quip about The Book of the Dead and September seems to have been taken too literally. Reply @CunningLinguistics 8 days ago I just found this channel and I'm very impressed with this interview. Great interview and wonderful questions. Thanks for this! Reply @antbrown9066 8 days ago Denis mentioned that he accors the narrative that given the right conditions, life can emerge. Dr James Tour, organic chemist, challenges this view and says it remains a theory which seems to be getting further away than closer to replication or conclusion. It would be good to see these 2 minds in discussion. Reply @ashleyashley9008 7 days ago Excited to read Dawkin's new book in September and really hope to see you two get back together for it!! Reply @dominiqueubersfeld2282 8 days ago So can any scientist explain the "purpose" of a tapeworm? 1 Reply 1 reply @dfsgfghgfh 15 hours ago The name of the book , represents it perfectly, i mean perfectly. The Selfish Gene shows you how natural selection works. Genes spread and survive , the fact that they serve the individual is just in their selfish interest. Individuals are just vehicles for gene transfer. Individuals are the test subjects for genes. Think about it like a seringe that delivers a serum. Let's say that the serum is inserted in the closed biological system of the planet. The better the serum, the higher chance that the substances in the serum will work. But ultimately in the long run , the selection will be made only on the individual substances of the serum's composition. Reply @xxfishytomatoxx6730 7 days ago the music at 20:00 literally made me go to sleep. goodnight Reply @lubumbashi6666 8 days ago This video is incredible, and Nobie has such clarity of thought. Wealthy individuals are learning this experimentally when they pay stupid amounts of money to clone their pets. The result is an animal which is similar but different, more different than identical twins. They have different personalities, different appearanced. It seems obvious in retrospect. People are trying to manipulate their own genes today, albeit with high tech - IVF, CRISPR, etc. It's really not that big a conceptual leap to recognize that this desire is not new. And if this desire to manipulate genes is not new, then why wouldn't organisms have evolved ways to manipulate their own genomes at a more basic level. Reply @sordidknifeparty 7 days ago If you can remove a particular function from a process, and that process continues unhindered ( removing a gene which is necessary for the heart's rhythm and the heart's Rhythm continues unchanged) that I'm not sure in what sense you can call that process critical. It seems to me that you would have to call that a redundant process Reply @ww3ofthepsychealbumcomings486 2 days ago The ancients knew that you treated the body as a whole. Reply @franksalo3466 2 days ago Question Everything...because thats what makes good science Reply @Milan_Rosko 3 days ago Greatest of respect for this person, but to say that his ideas are not convincing, would be an understatement. Reply @c.s.munford4865 2 days ago For Denis's well-argued theory to work, an organism needs to be pursuing an aim that pre-existed before natural selection began, such as the aim of learning about and understanding the world. This would make the aim of survival and reproduction incidental to life! This radical claim is imbedded in what Denis argues, and I hope others will help develop it soon. Reply @dagwood953 7 days ago Wondering how this would blend with Rupert Sheldrake's Morphic Resonance? Hmm .. 1 Reply 1 reply @Scott-et4kd 9 days ago Andrea just beats the hell out of Fridman. Reply @curiousmind9287 6 days ago Even purposeful evolution, if we accept that all cells have some type of cognition, cant explain increasing complexity in evolution without any advantages for survival. Reply @DogWalkerBill 9 days ago Some people speculate that the Universe itself is a conscious entity. Does this imply the Universe is purposeful? That the purposefulness of the Universe is the source of purposefulness in our cells and body. 1 Reply 2 replies @carmellephillips5668 9 days ago Wow, this is fascinating. If biological systems functions are emergent, gained through purposeful evolution, than I have to agree with the Physicist Tom Campbell’s views on evolution and that Consciousness is fundamental therefore consciousness is driving purposeful evolution in biological systems. Reply @ParadiseLordRyu 4 days ago I’m thinking “what about the mutations that don’t work?” Or “what about stuff like cancer?” 1 Reply 3 replies @carlt570 7 days ago Goethe (Johann Wolfgang von 1749-1842) in his biological theory, suggested that one needed to consider the whole to understand it, rather than the accepted reductionist model. Reply @revivlerech9020 1 day ago 1. This is an awe inspiring conversation. Thank you. 2. Your dog is really cute. Reply @lindaabernathy4876 9 days ago Francise Collins' book, "The Language of God" kinda tells you all you need to know about what he thinks of genetics & the human genome. He BELIEVES in it and that means it is NOT science, it is scientism. That is largely what has become of science. Debate is formally dead and buried. No one is allowed to question the dogma promulgated by the priests of scientism...you will be ridiculed to no end. Potentially, the people controlling the grant money will black list you and your career will disappear in a puff of smoke. To me, that means science is DEAD. If you cannot quesition it, it isn't science! 1 Reply @mitre1 2 days ago The professors jumper knitting gene was extremely active during this interview Reply @mathquir190 6 days ago It's really an intuitive explanation to me. I always though like that. We kinda are an multi organism that have differents processes that need to be separated to not overflow the mind of the consciousness that it'S precise purpose is to deal with outside the organism or physical tasks or matters for the survival of the organism. Reply @chrisxavier1848 4 days ago Great that he is thinking along the right lines with respect to the evidence, but why is he holding back from acknowledging that emergent functions require sufficient complexity ? Reply @Rob337_aka_CancelProof 2 days ago 1:04:01 that's not a response for the email it's a plug for his upcoming book Reply @FractalWanderer 7 days ago Jordan Peterson needs to talk to this man. Reply @ThinkermanQuindo 2 days ago I love this discussion. The very concept of neo- Darwinism suggests that Darwinism does not, and cannot, explain everything, as I have heard denied by microbiologists. I think Darwinism explains secondary adaptations in evolution,but there is much more going on. So now finally we’re asking what that is? A process of reductionism. When you have exhausted everything possible what remains unexplained are the borders of a new paradigm, the beginning of new theories, and the birth of a new science. My own belief - and no more than supposition - is that we will find intelligence in the gene, a feedback loop by which it can adapt itself to survive. But where and what is it? So much of the gene is a complete mystery. Reply 1 reply @sergeycleftsow4389 8 days ago Absolutely fascinating conversation, awesome interlocutors. I will watch it again. Reply @Keithblazeraw 9 days ago Great discussion! Loved every second of it! Thanks for the upload... Reply @abstraction_INVERSION 9 days ago "Once you realize there is more than one process going on, you don't go on denying it" Unless you're in Cosmology or Astrophysics- in which case it's necessary to deny exhaustive evidence 1 Reply @nicktaylor5264 6 days ago Apparently that guy actually knew Darwin personally. True. Reply @JhonIgnacioBurbanoArcos 1 day ago Realmente impresionante, Denis Noble no cabe duda de que es un cientifico brillante, su premio nobel sus aportes a la ciencia, a la biología, es una delicia escucharlo. Me deja con a la duda al final cuando dice que Darwin dio una solución diferente al origen de las especies, solución que nunca publico en su libro. Y la chica que lo entrevista es brillante también, que mujer tan inteligente. Reply @shinobicl 9 hours ago So, being able to explore possibilities of the future is a evolutionary development. The better we plan the better we perform, right? So purpose is just a "secondary effect" of that evolution? Something like makes us want to think about the future? That the 'intellectual happiness' that causes to think about the future is an analogous to the sexual attraction that drives us to sexual activity? Reply @DirtyLifeLove 8 days ago This hypothesis is on track imho. I always intuitively known that the Universe “works” towards life. We are not alone. Random mutations don’t make the human eye. There is a “fabric” of scaffolding that attracts seeming complexity. This lead to all sorts of creations Reply @TheDAT9 6 days ago I have listened to this discussion several times. I think there is just one more step to in our development, there is, "A ghost in the machine" Reply @DemonetisedZone 8 days ago (edited) i never heard of Weisman Barrier before yet i have thought the fact cells live on from the parent is immortality, it is undeniable the cells originate from the previous generation Reply @johnbrusseau8145 9 days ago If I wish to create a song I might first build a guitar on which to compose this song. The guitar is a system created for the pupose of composing and performing a song. This is an analogy showing the interrelationship between catalyst stem and outcome. Reply @MichaelHarto 2 days ago The universe keeps a very clean check and balance of everything in it. Everything, that includes us and what had and will happen and exist. We are the process and result of keeping that check and balance. Nothing more and nothing less. Reply @johnbrusseau8145 9 days ago Context generates purpose which is them embodied in a system. So, yes, there is purpose in a system, yet its origin must be found outside of it in its context. Reply @kaihanstein52 9 days ago Andrea, you re a GODDESS! :D You re extremely smart. You seems to have a good way in dealing with people (non aggressive, open-minded, curious). I loved this interview, you made my day! Reply @MarshAgobert 7 days ago You’ve done a masterful job of taking point in conducting this interview. Thank you so much! Is there any merit in my perception that women in science are less prone to instigating warfare? Professor Noble is aptly named. Thank you both. Reply @donahunt832 7 days ago so i never understood HOW viruses could be qualified as non living...where do they derive the drive to INFECT, the drive to MUTATE to escape eradication etc?? Reply @0NeverEver 4 days ago (edited) For me it sounds like "function" in this case is a repacaging of the Idea of strong emergence. I don't say that strong emergence is Impossible, I Just want to clarify a Bit. I Like the artsy Style you present these Interviews Reply @skyshorrchannel3474 9 days ago Great channel, I'm subscribed. 1 Reply @humanerror7 7 days ago I always thought that Wallace was the mystical one and Darwin was the reductionist one? Like Wallace was a god fearing man, and he believed that there was more going on than simple natural selection when it comes to the topic of human origins Reply @peterjwest3 6 days ago I wouldn’t use the term “purpose”, because this implies intent or premeditation. I would just say that evolution has produced mechanisms to make limited change in organisms at a faster rate than evolution. For example many animals have evolved to teach their offspring. This happening at the genetic level as well is not surprising to me. Reply @wopajohn2855 8 days ago As soon as you consider that brain and mind might no be the same thing then current theories go out the window. Reply @dylanamos1047 6 days ago I suppose the fundamental question is 'what is the crossover point from or between, evolution and adaptation. Reply @stillwaitingforblackmetalr2503 5 days ago (edited) I would love to hear Noble's answer to what can be extrapolated from the idea that purpose is inherent to closed systems, which in turn makes the system an individual: that then the Universe itself has purpose and is an individual. I guess he'd just say "yes, I suppose" Reply @dprggrmr 4 days ago I don't know how many bowls I had to smoke to realize this but I'm glad I found this video to confirm what I was thinking fifteen minutes from now Reply @awuma 6 days ago (edited) The ideas of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin regarding evolution toward ever greater consciousness seem to be along the lines discussed here. Reply @ErgoCogita 9 days ago Ascribing purpose to natural processes is a long winded and losing battle. 1 Reply @Chatgptpluginsreview 5 days ago I get a kick out of how many people in the comment section in a rut, of a new perspective, a completely valid one at that Reply @chrisxavier1848 4 days ago If purpose then intelligent source; no running away from it. Reply @andythedishwasher1117 5 days ago I feel like at least some of the reductionist approach to Darwin's work was motivated by a desire to scientifically justify a variety of social prejudices like racism, sexism, and ableism. I think that train of thought resulted in the eugenics movement as we know it historically. Reply @Sparkling34 3 days ago this video was incredibly interesting 1 Reply @onedaya_martian1238 8 days ago (edited) Noble will be considered one of the members of the Pantheon of great thinkers, like Newton, Darwin etc. Reply @holly-leedickson6414 8 days ago Again what a fascinating and thought provoking discussion! Absolutely loved the mental workout it gave me. thank you for sharing!!! Reply @SpydrXIII 7 days ago i've always wondered how we get sexual attraction to certain features. like take the terrestrial whale ancestor. it evolves into a whale, it had to evolve thinking rodent-like features and behaviors were sexy, to thinking whale features and behaviors are sexy. how do we evolve our attraction for new features on our species, that would otherwise be perceived as unattractive? if we evolve a better feature, but it's not sexy, we just don't get the better feature. Reply @alfredadrianjr.4702 6 days ago The broader implications of the idea of emergence also applies to the climate. As a species we are in the midst of a great experiment. I fear that within just a decade or so, all or nearly all of the climate tipping points might trip the earth system into a hot house state. In fact, it may have already happened and we won't recognize this until well into the later part of this century. Dr. Hansen has made this abundantly clear but the oil executives don't give a crap. The money makes it impossible for them and many others to form a precautionary attitude. Given our consumption of oil (about 100 million barrels per day) and projected proven reserves along with decreasing EROI, industrial civ has just a few decades at most. Yet hardly anyone seems to care. Reply @jonathand8747 9 days ago Hey! Just found your channel, it looks like it's about a year old. Just wanted to say, you're doing great! Very high quality content, here, looking forward to watching more. Reply @SeanLKearns 7 days ago Keep an eye on that astronomical horizon. The creators should be arriving any minute now Reply @kazkk2321 8 days ago Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist with great attachment to certain ideas. He, just like others cannot let go of certain ideas Reply @davidstrevens9170 9 days ago Contributing environmental factors that influence genetic evolution also include purposive starlight and other numerous cosmic/galactic wave functions. Reply @CPHSDC 9 days ago 13 minutes: He talks about probabilities...(Electrocardiography was well mapped out when he globbed his mathematical model on it, so no Nobel for Noble.) then abandons it. 2 Reply 2 replies @mikewho9964 7 days ago Yes a well informed interviewer - i guess the age old question remains - what makes one organism be your toe and another your heart ? - i think Dennis Noble is a long way ahead of Dawkins but i guess we also have to consider the possibility of a " ghost in the machine " Reply @Brian_1597_of_Nazareth 8 days ago I think, life without purpose developed until just before Cambrium. Then self-sustaining mechanisms occured that began actively combining solutions adopting to environment far quicker. Libraries of genes were collected to chose from by switches. That is purposeful, a higher layer... Reply @danielash1704 7 days ago I've been seeing things in my own life that just doesn't make sense for the wavelength of connections to each person it's a matter of reading the whole body's frequency of the environment that they are in the process of finding out about each other is important to everyone that understands quantum science Reply @edlim3287 5 days ago "Life is a trait" "life is a process" Reply @lancestringer4964 7 days ago (edited) One needs to understand that most of the animosity stems from different worldviews/belief systems (and, yes, atheism and strict materialism is a worldview, sometimes displaying real religious zealotry). So even given that Noble says that his conception of the emergence of purpose as a process is purely natural, many will still see this as the introduction of thinly disguised metaphysics - a thin end of the wedge. This is seen as dangerous as it will embolden theists, New Age quackery and the like and this, in their view, cannot be allowed. 2 Reply 1 reply @Liphted 9 days ago This was a great conversation. Subscribed! Reply @edwardhanson3664 2 days ago "You can't have a function without a purpose." Reply 1 reply @Nordic93 5 days ago What if our immune system is conscious, but it runs in a different partition, that you as the main partition dont have access to. 1 Reply 1 reply @stianmathisen4284 9 days ago This is really good, Noble for the Nobel Price!!! Reply @siddified 7 days ago While epigenetics is a growing field, Noble overstates its current empirical support and potential impact on evolutionary theory compared to genetic inheritance. Reply @aricanto1764 7 days ago Was technologically advanced society reached aeons ago? Does this explain the "evolutionary" gap? Reply @dennisotieno5645 5 days ago This was a great interview and an eye-opener. Science must be open to interrogating other possibilities. I can relate a lot to what Denis is saying when I try to focus on how viruses interact with living organisms. Reply @SingularityAdvent 6 days ago One day the brain decided to announce to all that it's the most important part of the body. The asshole interjected and opposed. After one week of debate and constipation, the body unanimously decided to give the crown to the asshole. No jokes aside, the important part to be learned is that we are multicellular colonies and our individual perception is not entirely correct. This is the first video that confirms my own observation. When I got hurt, I just had to focus my mind and my thoughts towards the area that hurt and not contain the pain but allow it to be there at the surface of my thoughts, and just repeat like a mantra the word heal or repair with that intent. I believe all damage was solved faster. Reply @cosmicaudio4589 6 days ago Suberb interview, that was an insight of great depth. Thank you. Reply @kgrandchamp 5 days ago (edited) I don't know if cells come together to form an organism, rather isn't it that the original totipotent cell, formed by the egg and sperm coming together, differentiates to form the different organs and structural elements that enable the organsim to survive? An organsim is not a coming together of parts, i.e. the cells, but a differentiation of a whole, a totality, that has been such since the beginning of conception! That is Bernardo Kastrup's idea! Thanks professor Noble and Andrea for this fascinating discussion! Reply @iamnature7353 6 days ago Note that Dawkins does not attribute purposeful selfishness or conscious motives to genes. By calling genes "selfish", he means that their evolutionary success in being replicated and transmitted across generations is what matters from the perspective of natural selection. Dawkins uses "selfish gene" as a metaphor to describe how genes that are better at getting copied to subsequent generations will tend to become more prevalent over time through natural selection. He does not imply that genes have conscious desires or intentions. The "selfishness" refers to their differential replicative success, not any purposeful agency. Organisms and their phenotypic traits evolve as "survival machines" that allow genes to be propagated across generations. The organism's characteristics are shaped by selection to maximize the genes' chances of being passed on. Dawkins contrasts the "gene's eye view" with the traditional individual-centered perspective, arguing the gene level provides a more accurate causal explanation for the processes of evolution by natural selection. So in essence, Dawkins uses "selfish gene" as a metaphorical way to describe the gene-level dynamics that drive evolution, not to attribute literal selfishness or intentionality to genes themselves. The organism is shaped to best propagate its genes across generations. Reply @tangofaebatelli1237 9 days ago Excellent interview! Haven’t explored your channel yet, but would love to see Noble & Michael Levin in conversation. Or even, you could/should interview Levin if you haven’t yet. Also Iain Mcgilchrist! Reply @jamieclarke321 6 days ago Just before 1hr and 20mins Dennis brings up that AI won’t reach superhuman levels of intelligence due to a lack stochasticity/ randomness. However the new DrEureka paper leverages AI hallucination to create reward functions for training robotic systems and this seems to be yielding fantastic results in the hard problem of robotics Reply @somenygaard 9 days ago A century ago you could make an argument for evolutionary theory. The last couple decades and our far better understanding of DNA and its processes along with a better understanding of the cell and cellular replication have destroyed the possibility of DNA being a product of random beneficial genetic mutations. It’s a coded language with incredibly complex and precise information. Nobody would deny a heat carved into tree bark with two sets of initials inside of the heart is the result of an intelligent mind. DNA isn’t an accident. Reply @amanofnoreputation2164 6 days ago The immune system is conscious, it just isn't conscious of itself. Our minds are conscious but they are also conscious of themselves. So some people have used the term "meta-conscious." Reply @sordidknifeparty 7 days ago You don't have to know why something does a certain thing to know how it does a certain thing. In fact it's arguable that why a thing does anything it's totally inconsequential and simply an artifact of our own perception. Why is a particular thing the way it is? Because that is the geometry of the universe Reply @jareddunlop8411 7 days ago Ok, Ill give you a sub. These are interesting videos you have. Reply @benverhaag8191 8 days ago This shows all too clearly how limited science is. Many very important phenomena manifest themselves under very specific circumstances, among which time is often a factor, and a moment in time cannot be reproduced. That is how limited science is. (in definition) Reply @rolanddeschain9619 6 days ago So... this explains why a snake can grow a tail that looks exactly like a spider to lure in prey to eat? Reply @AL-ku1zq 9 days ago I wonder if Denis Noble has spoken with Sara Walker. She is working on the question of what is life. Reply @goldwhitedragon 8 days ago Chris Langan's CTMU is the final answer. Hoffman and other top scientists know this and borrow from it, but change it a bit to make it appear they didn't copy Langan. Reply @SlaveRebellion-yn5wy 6 days ago (edited) So the DNA was the result of the needs of the cell. The cell preceded the DNA. The brain was the result of the needs of the body. The multicellular organism preceded the development of the brain. Is that the story? Reply @lisaclausen8304 9 days ago Seems like these people need to read Thomas Kuhn and accept paradigm shifts rather than digging their heels in... Reply @floyd3276 9 days ago Such a beautiful intelligent woman, anyone would be so lucky to have her as a best friend. She is interested in so many profound subjects. It would be a joy to get to know her. Reply @_Royalfool_ 9 days ago Great video, nice production value and topic. Enjoyed Reply @tofo2 9 days ago What is strange with genes creating something that works in orchestration? Nature does nor argue with success. It just finds it harder to cause a suitable accident. Reply @robyn-lee-INFJ 7 hours ago Does this begin to say consciousness is more at work than human ideas about what consciousness is? How we ignore what we do. 58:32 Reply @JungleJargon 9 days ago It’s sad when people are unable to see the intent that makes us human instead of a squirrel. It’s billions of bits of specific programming that we are considering. Reply @oliverjamito9902 9 days ago (edited) My beautiful thank you for attending! My beautiful share thy shared "i" AM Beautiful! Love you! Reply @robertbrowning2 9 days ago Probably the best YouTube video I have seen this year. Enable super thanks. Reply @tuanfro7273 9 days ago This bridges so many areas in science, medicine & philosophy.. to my mind highlighting how philosophy is an essential part of science as so many apparently unlikely things influence outcomes of debate and without also having the ability to cross reference multi discipline understandings we miss out on having the various lenses respected enough to follow theories through the years of development. Also highlighting to my mind how many so called fringe opinions are being overlooked as they don't agree with mainstream accepted dogma endorsed by the those who fund and benefit from simplifying everything so they can market poor solutions to the world's problems. Reply @cdunne1620 9 days ago At 48:50 he says human consciousness is derivative, ie. it is dependent on the cell agglomeration and organisation, that is the regular plain old ego. However the broader process of the environment, the earth, the sun, the galaxies etc are each dependent. The whole is not captured in any of this. The whole is not dependent. If the ego could investigate itself could that investigation lead to an understanding or an insight into its operation and thus lead to a broader mind underlying the ego, to a mind that is not dependent, that is whole and not dependent on the material process, yes it is possible but no science will ever discover that, science is rooted in the material which is necessary of course Reply @WelfareChrist 7 days ago Nothing he’s said here throws doubt on modern understandings of evolution, it only throws doubt on his misunderstandings and bad faith representations of neo Darwinism Reply @timothykeiningham7105 7 days ago Some of the things he’s said are just straight up incorrect in such a fundamental way that even someone who is barely educated on these topics would do a double take and be like wait what the FUCK did he just say??? Reply @johnhoward2404 9 days ago I’ve often argued that the conscious “we” that refers to our “subconscious” is possibly doing the subconscious a disservice. It may be as fully conscious of the wider world as we are, and it’s aware of us. We are aware of the wider world, but mostly ignorant of the subconscious. So which is the more conscious in that case? I’ve adopted some of those self-improvement dictums so that I never say things like “I can never remember…”. Instead I politely address my “subconscious” and ask it to retrieve the information I require. I seem to have a better recall rate than previously, so it seems to be working. I also never forget to say “Thankyou”. Miss Manners would approve. Reply 1 reply @uwen1443 9 days ago (edited) Dennis noble pushes the simplistic popular concept of evolution by challenging the actual dynamics but hearing the talk, i dont think the broad idea of evolution , epigenesis where the gene is considered the blueprint of hereditary, nor even dawkin's notion of selfish gene are negated. perhaps a better definition is probable Noble held a different approach toward the subject matter from bottom up. it is like stating the outcome of a car power is due to the engine but we all know in F1 racing every parts matter in pitstop to deliver the working power. afterall evolution, at the cosmic level, the fundamental law of cause, condition and effect that evolution playout at the significant timeframe is irreversible. Reply @edgaralansmithee8638 7 days ago Once you understand why there is something rather than nothing, you can finish his thought for him. Reply @bujinkanatori 7 days ago there ARE interesting studies about Lamarcian evolution. But I think it is not as dominant guiding force as darwinian evolution. Reply @simonskymaccom 18 hours ago Great interview. What an exemplary scientist! More like him please. Reply @davemullins8266 7 days ago I think understanding this concept of evolution of a purpose can be facilitated by understanding the origination and development of cities. Consider the purpose and origin of cities created 5,000 years ago compared to cities today. Different functions came into being as a result of outside factors like technology that caused an evolution in the purpose of cities then and now. Exactly the same mechanisms at work in biological evolution or evolution of any accumulation of many individual objects. Reply @bogdanandone9022 7 days ago He should talk with Zizek. Do it Andreea ! Amazing talk ! Reply @azarnoosh.z 6 days ago Thank you for this interview, Andrea! You helped me understand a topic that at first I thought it’s beyond my knowledge and understanding. So much respect for you 🫶️ Reply @n8works 8 days ago The music accomplishment to the conversation makes this a lot more entertaining. Great job on this one. Reply @ArmandBarbe 9 days ago Even twins starting out with identical DNA, show differences over time. Reply @wopajohn2855 8 days ago Purpose, "It came from me"? I am trying to understand how that makes sense. Reply @syedalishanzaidi1 9 days ago (edited) I do not have a background in biology, but I read books on evolutionary biology and try to listen carefully when biologists speak on any branch of their subject. Prof. Noble points out that DNA is not the be-all and end-all of life processes, and that the reverse might be true that cells in the body constantly respond to stimuli in the immediate environment, transmitting information thus received to adjoining cells until the message is carried back to the genome resulting in minute changes in the DNA [which may or may not be expressed in the next generation of offspring]. This cell-to-genome journey is something that Michael Levin is working on in his lab, and his presentations seem to throw new light on the subject. I would like to know what Professor Noble thinks of Michael Levin's work, and to what extent he thinks Levin's research reflects the plausibility of Lamarckian explanations in evolutionary theory. Reply @boblove3167 6 days ago In the interview, Noble says cells have volition from which purpose arises internally. However in the same sentence he says that this purpose is immediately put to the test to see "if it works" implying some pre-existing or emergent constraint (whatever you call it) on the cell's purpose which is at least partially external to the cell of which the cell has knowledge or consciousness only by experiencing the consequences of its actions. Organic scientists like Whitehead have been humble enough to acknowledge this final purpose as Divinity which holds the universe together. It is logically impossible to escape the goodness of Aristotle's first mover. Reply 2 replies @talonkarade 6 days ago Evolution is purposeful. To survive. Reply @ian_b 9 days ago If it's purposeful, its purpose is to create mostly single celled organisms with what we call "higher" organisms as an accidental byproduct. For most of the history of life, there was nothing but the single cell, and they are still by far the most successful creatures. Reply @MarkJones-fw3mo 6 days ago Of course it has purpose. It's called survival. Reply @typo44 8 days ago So which came first? The purpose or the life? Reply @anitareasontobelieve378 9 days ago Wow that conversation was magic! Did you see how the man's lighting and clothes can change as she watches this man talk! Dang! He's amazing. She's got or is a fantastic editor. Reply @igorbesel4910 7 days ago Very good work. Looking forward to more. Reply @johnbassett1110 8 days ago This was a fascinating discussion, thank you both. Reply @cuchareable 6 days ago great man, i still remember how good of a makeover he gave to Woody on toy story 3. Reply @streetwisepioneers4470 4 days ago Or put another way.... Constrained interactive cognition, leads inevitably to critical mass, life, and another constrained existence. SELF AWARENESS! Stopping where you mean to start eliminates the halting problem. Reply @AndyJarman 9 days ago I've forgotten who I was listening to the other day, they explained the brain was an outgrowth of the eyeball. The electrical inpulses that are generated when an eye witnesses light are the first electrical pulses in the body. Being a product of the eye, neurons develop fundamentally to recognise patterns that profit the organism, giving it and opportunity to suceed or fail depending on how it responds to the light stimulus. Like the rhythms, musical tones and harmonics of music the neurones that constitute a brain begin to go beyond current patterns and start to anticipate and seek meta patterns within the chaos. Hence a language of profitable respinses develops in species that become more sucessful. Eventually what was originally response to stimuli become a model of the stimulous sources, with greater reward and importance placed upon rhose stimuli that convey the greatest profit. Conscious is the response to stimulus that provides the most profit over an extended period. This involves creating subroutines and concepts as a means of recording the profit certain responses produce. Reply @Edmund_Mallory_Hardgrove 9 days ago (edited) I'm curious how this might relate to the placebo effect. Which is a well documented physical affect, and seems to be one caused by consciousness. Reply @wattsupdave 7 days ago What an awesome discussion! Reply @chrisxavier1848 4 days ago There is no such thing as a non-conscious awareness unless it has been pre-programmed. Reply @ung427 9 days ago It's no surprise as when one reduces their subjective reality to it's irreducible constituent, Consciousness Itself arises as the field, and the nature of this Reality is Creativity. Hence the underlying patterns that arise seemingly out of nothing, are arising out of a Creative continuum. Reply @menosproblemos6993 6 days ago (edited) There is some debate on what the definition of life should be. Before we thought bacteria where alive and that virus where not. Then we found 'giant virus' (search Nucleocytoviricota and you'll probably find it) that is bigger and more complex than some bacteria. I think that defining life is out of the pond all together. That we made up the theory of life before we knew the complexity of matter, then fail at fitting in our growing knowledge into our popular definition. But that's just me. edit: a bit like he defines molecules as alive within a cell and dead outside of one, we could go bigger and say that the Earth is alive and everything within its atmosphere is alive as well. And bigger yet if our observable universe is within a bigger creature. Reply @Nivloc317 9 days ago This sounds like there are specifics within the cell membranes, quite apart of the DNA, that play a roll in the function of the whole cell. This reminds me of the coacervate theory of evolution, where proto-cell membranes in the form of sea foam composed of lipids preceded the genome. I have been inclined toward this theory for quite some time. Reply @selfworldhealing3040 8 days ago Wow, I just found you! Amazing interview!!! I am writing a book on evolution, and this just backed my theory up! Sure, everything is a hologram and if consciousness of the human, organs, cells can all proven to work like this model, then of course you could see it on a broader scale where individuals have a purpose on multiple levels too that intentions cannot be conscious of in the larger scheme of things. We can consider the Earth system, or the human species, as an organism too! We certainly have collective consciousness in addition to our individual consciousness. From Lazlo's perspective, there is a trophic attractor that everything moves towards with increasing coherence, complexity, and intelligence, and this completes his systems theory of evolution perfectly! Reply @basitali4295 1 day ago Oke of the best interviews ever... Loved every single minute of it. Reply @rvirzi 9 days ago Fascinating! Amazing interview - thank you. Reply @NordaVinci 8 days ago (edited) "Random/stochastic" seems to refer to "ignorance of the purpose." You say, "organizing principle is purpose (paraphrased)" There of course is the purpose of the individual, as well as purpose of the whole and therefore, the force or energy that allows the purpose of the whole and the purpose of the individual to be conscious of and to communicate with each other. Reply @williambillycraig1057 6 days ago The dogmatism of scientists stifles innovation and advancement. Reply @tomardans4258 5 days ago They did not even know what genes are. Reply @figolee2419 4 days ago I feel like someone’s cake is getting divided so they try to stop the trend of this new top-down way of seeing biology. We all know that there are lots of grants given to “bottom-up” approach in answering research question in life science. Reply @SMMore-bf4yi 9 days ago And if talking about an automatic process, doesn’t that mean perpetual motion which there must be, the original blueprint for life, something very simple, the 1st spark, didnt genes evolve later ? Whilst we creative will nature overrule what it can’t compete with ? Reply @Achrononmaster 6 days ago Re "ProfGregTuckerKellog" and clickbaiting... I've come to appreciate some click baits, they do get weird stuff into recommendations, which is good and bad. But I think it is fair to say "Evolution" is a theory or model, and so has no mind or intentionality, so has no purpose. What has purpose is the human soul (or any other entities with minds in the physical world). That is however outside biology, probably outside of all science. It is not part of evolutionary theory in biology. It is part of evolutionary theory outside of biology. Whether the soul influences evolution is the question. Even more fundamental, does the (nonphysical) mind influence matter at all? It's a good question to ask, but it has no scientific answer. The best science can do is show physical time evolution is nondeterministic, which leaves causal freedom for other causes to gain determinism back. That's closer to physics than biology. To this day theoretical physicists debate at dinner parties whether quantum mechanics is deterministic or nondeterministic, and the answer depends on who you talk to, which again is not established science, it is sociology of science. 1 Reply 1 reply @paulvalletta01 8 days ago It is interesting that a cell that was created by a human in 1936? existed at a moment in time, that cannot be recreated at a future time? Twins are born at a proximity of time, the closer in time, the more "alike" or identical the humans become. I was one of five children, separated by birth by 7 years, I am more like my closest in time brother, and nothing like my oldest brother. Time is paramount in cell evolution. Reply @risingphoenix8056 9 days ago Noble alludes to organism, process and whole in much the same spirit as Wolfgang Smith and Rupert Sheldrake who both acknowledge A. N. Whitehead as a major influence. Next to Aristotle and Plato. Reply @KerbalFacile 9 days ago (edited) Absolutely fascinating ! So DNA is more akin to a mashed-up thesaurus, which co-evolved along with a complex set of active RNA molecules editing the contents of this thesaurus, as well as an incredibly more complex set of proteins and enzymes which, through their own environmentally-affected continuity across maternal lines, encode possibly even more of evolution than DNA itself... Reply @HarryJensen-kr4qz 9 days ago (edited) All this aside. Can anyone explain how we can dream a situation while a family member is experiencing the exact situation in real time? Can anyone explain: For months, machinery was malfunctioning because of an electronic issues professional electricians couldn't solve. One night in a dream I saw the bad component (I've no electricity experience). The following day I replaced the component and solved the problem. My boss asked, "How did you know?" All I could say, "I saw it in a dream." How are these things possible? 1 Reply @MatthewCleere 8 days ago Fantastic video! Let us let go of linear causality, be humble in the face of complexity, and observe relativity in all levels from small to large and large to small in all relationships of physics, chemistry and biology. Any good student of Lao Tzu, knows better than to confuse comprehension with total comprehension. More scientists should be students of the Tao. Reply @MrGustavier 4 days ago 24:42 "how on Earth does something like purpose arise from simple chemistry I'm saying that that is a process which you can only take as the whole it's the whole that gives the purpose to the parts" According to Kant, objects in general are formed by our cognition. So all objects have something in common : they are formed by our brains, and everything the brain does is for a "purpose", so all objects have a "purpose", the goal the brain that formed them wishes to accomplish by forming them. The basic motivation behind all conceptualization : communication, cooperation with fellow humans (we are a social species), survival, reproduction. "The whole gives the purpose to the parts" because there would be no whole if there were no purpose for the brain to form the concept of the whole. The function of the hammer is not to drive nails, WE want to drive nails, and we form the concept of the hammer to achieve that goal. The purpose of the hammer is to readily convey that purpose to other locutors of the language. The function of the heart is not to pump blood, WE want to have blood pumping, and we form the concept of the heart to achieve that goal. The purpose of the heart is to readily convey that purpose to other locutors of the language. "Objects" are nothing more than language categories, conceptual categories, cognitively and socially constructed in order to achieve some goal. That purpose, the purpose that motivates the formation of the object in the first place, will be profoundly structuring regarding what will be predicated of the object. 1 Reply 2 replies @DrZog69 7 days ago Excellent interviewing Reply @sincereflowers3218 9 days ago (edited) Did Dennis Noble publish his critiques anywhere? Evolution is the most well substantiated theory in modern science, and the basis of modern biology. A credible challenge to it is a big deal. Reply @ikcikor3670 5 days ago tl;dr 1.3 hours of blowing out of proportion the fact that some people disagree on how much some aspect that might affect evolution affects evolution Reply @skilz8098 7 days ago That's because, it was never the truth from its inception. Reply @PeaceProfit 5 days ago Thoughts are things, words are power, actions are authority... ProLove Reply @samanthamccarthy325 8 days ago What is it with the distracting background music? Reply @PurposePlastics 9 days ago Glad I found this channel, with all the AI garbage the algorithm has served me lately, finally a nugget Reply @rvnsglcr7861 9 days ago Fantastic conversation. It would be great to see you have a conversation with synthetic biologist Michael Levin. Reply @alaricgoldkuhl155 6 days ago A fascinating video demonstrating the "spookiness" of life. The work of Michael Levin rocked me in a similar way learning that each individual human cell has its own consciousness/intelligence which it contributes to the whole. Is it too soon to talk about giving life's purpose a name? Can we call Earth's biome "Gaia" yet, or will that make scientists' drinks come out of their noses? Reply @divided_and_conquered1854 7 days ago I don't see how this changes anything, frankly. If he claims that chance events lead to a strategy, and therefore a purpose, then isn't it in hindsight that we say that there is a strategy and a purpose, when really we are talking about chance events that lead to a certain outcome, which we later define as purpose? If a purpose evolves, then in what sense is it claimed to be a "purpose" at all? A purpose requires forethought, aims, and a certain predetermined trajectory, does it not? It sounds an awful lot like semantics to me, combined with a little cart before the horse, and a little defining of terms with the benefit of hindsight. 28:03 "Aristotle said that there is what you call a final cause, which is indeed purpose." But if we don't know what the final cause is going to be, then in what sense is it at all purposeful, on any level, be it genomic, protein based, or holistically? Makes no sense. He goes on to say that we can do something NOW that ANTICIPATES the future - but it's not until we get to that future date that we can ever say that it was anticipated in any way whatever. None of this makes any sense to me. It sounds like a lot of semantic juggling to me. This guy defines purpose thusly: 28:42 "I think purpose is the use of CHANCE to EXPLORE "strategies" for the future." Now can ANY of you tell me what the heck that means other than CHANCE EVENTS LEADING TO AN OUTCOME which we later define as a strategy? IT'S HINDSIGHT! Strategies are predetermined! I throw my hands up. I have no time for this type of useless, meaningless conjecture. Reply @ChristineMeyer-hs9rg 5 days ago No science is now fixed. You just believe in it- have faith and don't ask questions. Experts know so don't think -its a waste of time and you will lose friends. Reply @johnbrusseau8145 9 days ago When referencing purpose arising from the whole we are necessarily implying context, for without context we do not have the whole. By suggesting pupose originates in a system, rather than merelt being embodied in a system we are generating an inconsistency with the idea of the whole. The whole involves a catalyst, system and an outcome. The catalyst acting on the system generates the outcome. Our human subjectivity leads us to wrongly assume that because the matrix/system/mother births the new thing it it the origin of that new thing. We have difficulty seeing that n external catalyst must be an originating part of the process. If you can grasp these realities you can then see that the material universe itself is an evolving system purposed to form a system capable of forming life. Everything is a part of the whole. And everything is ultimately purposed by something outside of this universal system. Reply @andrewbreding593 9 days ago I wish someone could get him a professional audio setup he needs something to help even out his warble it keeps cutting him as noise Reply @garmd4953 6 days ago Even when you see the facts you are all , purposefully, running away from whats obvious. The animal can not know the future. The percieved purpose arises from God imposing on creation behaviors and strategies to achieve His purpose in creation. And the creatures following through with its behavior is it's worship , obedience to the creator. 1 Reply @joecaruso3756 9 days ago Bring on Dr James Tour to talk about the chemistry for origin of life Reply @chinchillaruby4170 3 days ago Good video, I enjoyed. 1 Reply @erichschinzel6486 9 days ago Excellent conversation... Reply @kennethfarthing1474 20 hours ago What ? a worm can’t turn into a beagle Reply @tgenov 6 days ago @43:20 You can't have a function that doesn't have a purpose. In the spirit of "keeping the wind out of the sails of theists" the notion of purpose here isn't what we typically infer: Intentions, design etc. It's simply the POSIWID principle. The purpose of a system is what it does. Reply @pdcarey 8 days ago That was wonderful Andrea, thank you. Reply @Cernunnnos 8 days ago Heat dissipation driven adaptation still explains it best. You could see that as purpose if you're religiously inclined. It's more like a law of reality. Reply @itsokthen 21 hours ago This is the type of thing people want to believe because it makes them feel better / important. This is just religion reimagined Reply @jamesstrawn6087 8 days ago It certainly seems as though we go to incredible logical lengths to reject purposeful design. I mean, is it not obvious enough that the purpose of the multitude of devices that human beings fabricate must pre-exist those devices themselves? These begin, so to speak, between someone's ears, in the will and intellect. But in something so complicated and "purposeful" as a cell wall, we reject Occam, why? Because we do not like the implication & have largely rejected it since the Enlightenment. Reply @Pay-It_Forward 8 days ago Speciation happens! There is close to 6000 species of ladybugs & interspecific hybrids are very difficult. There is close to 300 species on some farms & they don't even like to share the same plant much less interbreed. Zinc Finger Proteins can pass on learned adaptive epigenetic info by upregulating genes or turning of genes or moving genes for the next generation creating a vital step out of many towards Speciation. This adaptation technique is just one in many & has no limits! Reply @WILLIAMMALO-kv5gz 4 days ago This blows my plan to clone Lana Del Rey yet again...Can she be explained by processes? How do protons suddenly start quantum tunneling by the trillions to turn a tadpole into a frog in six weeks? Something is I think, intelligently active across all levels beyond our understanding so far...Thanks for this thoughtful video. Reply @curingaging 8 days ago Great interview! Reply @burningproblem 8 days ago You. Are. An. Amazing. Interviewer. Reply @amanofnoreputation2164 6 days ago (edited) No one expects the formative causality. Reply @amanofnoreputation2164 6 days ago Biological processes have to be be understood at the system level i.e holistically. Consciousness is also properly understood "at the system level." And the system level of consciousness is not the human body but the body of the universe. The purpose of consciousness is not a mere adaptation but the means by in which the universe as an organism experiences itself. Reply @shafiqjasar7260 3 days ago Thank you for the video. It is wonderfully described. I really enjoyed watching it. Reply @SammiLucia 7 days ago I think what you're talking about is thermodynamics. the process of life, and life evolving, is due to the flow of thermodynamics, which tends towards higher states of entropy. "life" decreases entropy in the organism, but 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘴 entropy in its surroundings. evolution fulfills the directional flow of thermodynamics towards entropy. Reply 1 reply @LIQU9or 7 days ago Lovely interview! Reply @Vyezene 8 days ago Great video, the background music is terrible and distracting though :/ Reply @Acetyl53 9 days ago Also your thumbnail is not describing a scientist, it's describing a religionist. I literally never cared whether there was some greater teleology, or "intelligent" force behind evolution. I don't need it to be a particular way. I came up with a concept I dubbed "autoevolution" as a child, which essentially stated that an organism would have some conception of its morphogenesis and genetic makeup, and that its nervous system or some other factor whether local or nonlocal, would take in information from its various tissues and environmental factors (including geomagnetic) and would formulate a plan in how it would bias its subsequent generations. Of course you would do this, like duh. I mean literally, duuuhhhh. Any micro-organism that developed a means to do this, ie employ a sort of metaheuristic, would be at such a massive advantage it would wipe out the competition very early on. And even in other areas, there is no basis to assert "random" anything, whether it be mutation or gene transmission. Even bacteria use plasmids to transmit genes to each other, known as lateral gene transmission. How can anyone look at all this and not put the pieces together? Literal children, who haven't been brainwashed yet, can do so with ease. Gimme a break it's ridiculous these moronic "debates" we see go on between "scientists". It's pure propaganda because we're probably living in something closer to a dream world than a hard materialistic mechanistic universe. Reply @SpikeThorn 6 days ago What a great interview, good job miss! Reply @patrickday4206 9 days ago (edited) Punctuated equilibrium?? Tied to epigenetics?? These things seem reasonable to believe that life struggles to survive the best way possible so if the learning of the best can be passed on then changes can be passed and happen faster and with more purpose. Makes sense with self organization of early cells and the new research with Yamanaka factors. Reply @williammcenaney1331 9 days ago Dr. Noble makes excellent points if I understand them. But he confused me when he seem to say nonliving viruses come to life when they enter cells. Does the cell animate viruses, or do virues serve purposes when cells contain those particles? My computer's microprocessor must "live" on the machine's logic board to compute antthing. It must interact with other computer parts to run a program. If I said the microprocessor thought and lived, that would anthropomorphize the machine. I call artificial intelligence "simulated intelligence" because I think people are the only intelligent earthly creatures. In my opinion, an intelligent creature requires an intellect and a will to be intelligent. I agree with Dr. Noble's beliefs about antireductionism. Still, I doubt merely serving a purpose in biological system can make its server intelligent. Reply @dongeonmaster8547 7 days ago 51:53 The interviewer conflates evolution with abiogenesis. Reply @Keithzzzzt 8 days ago The concept that evolution is simply a random mutation that conferred a benefit to the orgamism is simplistic. There is an intelligence at work here perhaps even in a quantum or spiritual level. You can't convince me that a snake randomly mutated the tip of its tail to perfectly mimic a spider. It looks and moves exactly as a spider and it lures in birds looking for a quick snack. There is a purposeful intelligence at work here. Reply @danielash1704 7 days ago We project our own frequencies of genetics and that's how people are not so easy to get the points of attractions versus infatuation and lust for the other person facial expressions of their body symitry and the starting point of the brain itself Reply @alfredadrianjr.4702 6 days ago If this is true it has remarkably profound implications for the proliferation of mRNA vaccines. I was skeptical of the tech and refused vaccination until I had to receive it for the purpose of extending my visa here in Phil. Most biologiats lime myself are aware of reverse transcriptase and ERVs. Three days after the jab I suffered intense lower back pain. It comes and goes now. Hopefully I won't suffer some sudden cardiovascular event. I wonder what Noble thinks of these matters. Reply @sazajac77z 5 days ago Non-life to life? I dont think so. One bit of evidence that its possible would be nice. 2 Reply 3 replies @troytegen4538 5 days ago Fantsastic content. Liked and subbed. Reply @gerardmulder7656 8 days ago (edited) Dawkins and Noble are likely both right. Noble filled in part of the blanks in dawkins vision. Dawkins encapsulates Nobles ideas in his concepts, it is just that the simple bits in Dawkins theory turn out ot be much more intricate. A bit like newtonian physics being a degenerate case of einsteins relativistic model. Reply @JungleJargon 9 days ago In physics, matter and energy cannot make or direct themselves. To suggest such a thing is to give the credit to matter and energy for what matter and energy are unable to do. Such a positive claim has to be demonstrated before making the claim. Reply @AntonioAfonso-uy6pm 4 days ago What a great interview. Complete different of anything else and still good. Reply @ingvaraberge7037 8 days ago Body sending messages to the eggs and sperms on how to adapt to the environment is what it is called epigenetics. Epigenetics are at work, but only within a certain frame set by the total genome of the organism. Reply @heatfield4243 8 days ago "The body communicates with the germ line." Really sounds like romantic nonsense. Reply @danielltorres5895 1 day ago If only it could be observable, maybe then it could be scientific Reply @juliuswambete9504 5 days ago For instance, her heart is pumping blood around her body. Is she consciously or intentionally directing the heart? But we know from experience that the heart has purpose or function, which is an inherent property of cells and tissues of the heart muscles. We didn't ask for it to be there! It just happens to be!! Reply @sindrejakobsen 5 days ago Great podcast, but the sound is a bit bad :( Reply @kamanashisroy 9 days ago So neural network and consciousness is the ultimate tool of adaptation that is derived as a result of evolution. Reply @wailingbear 8 days ago What you explained there is that the fred gene is actually not causal. Oops yep he said it and but he may be incorrect about proteins. If the proteins are made by the gene they are on the wrong side of the causal equation. In the very least "causal" is being incorrectly used here. Remember the simplest process or model allows for expansion, but you must be careful not to introduce false assumptions. Reply @BjrnChrRdal 9 days ago Nietzsche fits perfectly with what Nobel is describing and saying. Reply 1 reply @GlobeHackers 7 days ago (edited) Fascinating to stumble upon this conversation. Sometimes, the Algo Gods are good to me. I love Denis's room. TWE is an exciting line of inquiry. We shall see if we survive as a species long enough. Maybe evolution doesn't have a plan for homo sapiens. And what about FLUKES? Denis is a brilliant and lovely man. For additional perspectives on the topic see "Why Evolution is True" from Jerry Allen Coyne. Reply @srussifordwilliams 9 days ago (Background music during talking too loud) Reply @afcans7301 9 days ago Listening to minds like this speak leaves me in awe, i wish that i was more then monkey on a rock floating around in space and could help/contribute. Reply @635574 9 days ago There is a new startup making a completely new type of computing which uses the randomness of heat itself for AI and should have insane acceleration in term fo speed and energy efficiency comapred to binary computers. Theyre in the early research state with first physical protoypes which look closer to quwntum processors due to the vacuum insulation. Reply @outofoblivionproductions4015 9 days ago I wish Noble hadn't got distracted away from Lamarch at the beginning of this conversation. Lamarch was the first to propose a theory of evolution and he is always neglected by Brits wanting the attention. Reply @georgegough9395 9 days ago This is an example of the rational scientific peer review process where a new slant is examined for feasibility. The same process is underway for Einstein's theories as well. Note, this does not validate the biblical alternative, especially the irrational creationist nonsense. Reply @ThomasAllan-up4td 3 days ago I think they both just like showing off their furniture in the background. His is as old as the hills while hers have evolved into something more modern. Reply @ThomasAllan-up4td 3 days ago I think they both just like showing off their furniture in the background. His is as old as the hills while hers have evolved into something more modern. Reply @robcarter3341 7 days ago So good. You really get the best out of people. I loved that. Reply @aoihana1042 7 days ago You earned a subscriber! I'm a molecular biologist Reply @AquariusGate 7 days ago 38:22 memories of stress and joy are carries from mother to offspring through epigenetic inheritance. A species wide growth to honour our mothers life? Through this process, our cells are carrying a string of history we've never experienced. Reply @gammaburst1 9 days ago (edited) Where noble postulates that “purpose” starts with “membranes” because they impose constraints on a system perhaps minimizes antecedent constrains—the extent of a pond, the circumference of a planet, the width of a galaxy, and on and on—and therefore ultimately minimizes the “purpose” of the universe…. Reply 1 reply @spectralvalkyrie 9 days ago Question: purpose evolved to shape the environment? Reply @andreantunha2272 5 days ago Jacques Monod: "Chance and Necessity" Necessity = Purpose? Reply @MariusHeier1 9 days ago This was mind blowing. Need a co episode with Levin Reply @yf1177 8 days ago Purposeful agent behavior is an emergent and evolved attribute of organisms. I'm not understanding why this is novel or controversial. Reply @JungleJargon 9 days ago For one thing, even if you have the exact same information, the individual person or animal will not be the same as the original. The result is very different. Reply @jasonshapiro9469 8 days ago I wonder how Darwin would predict the A.I situation playing out? I think the fact we can't figure this stuff out without machine learning is indicative of where we're headed. I wonder if A.I machines will decide to keep the biological process around after they perfect it..or if they will just scrap the whole process Reply @reclawyxhush 4 days ago Thank you for sharing with the world that glimpse of that infinite depth of the mystery of evolution; yet another confirmation of the purposefulness of life. Reply @mikek7660 5 days ago I felt so smart until he talked about the valve computer and how he programmed it with the heart cells' ion channels to reproduce the rhythm of the heartbeat and proved it was self generating. .....bro. Reply 1 reply @mystryfine3481 9 days ago I watch any video that includes a lecture or interview with Dennis Noble. Reply @clinthazzard7397 9 days ago This makes the Spiderverse very complicated Reply @5principlesorganizedcomplexity 7 days ago My channel is focused on answering the question regarding where the Organized Complexity of the Universe comes from. The best example of Organized Complexity is life, and even more so, self aware life. My work over several decades has successfully answered this question to its logical conclusion. My answer was published as my book, The Five Principles of Organized Complexity, published 2011 and 2020. At its root, the emergence of Organized Complexity is down to the prescription and interactivity of infinitely many propagating three sixes, across three dimensions. Organized Complexity is prescribed by the distribution of Prime numbers. Reply @NordaVinci 8 days ago (edited) Noble seems to advocate "the evolution of individual purpose," but, in this talk anyway, doesn't advocate the existence of "the purpose of the whole universe . . . as the beginning of the universe" [Excerpt from "Myself" linked to below - agrees with Kantian Whole] There are dual purposes here: one is to maintain oneself, and the other to become part of the large self, which is the universe. A man's purpose for finding a woman as an object is to preserve and perfect himself, and then become one with her, and then, their purpose is to have children. In this way, they stand in the same position as their ancestors. Let us look at the example of our eyes. The eye has the purpose of self-existence, but also that of serving the whole body. The ear has to operate automatically, but it also helps the whole. Everything from particles to the largest creation has a right to exist, but if there was only the purpose of the individual, how could the universe be interrelated? It is because all individuals have dual objectives: one is to protect the self and the other to make sure the self combines with another self to make a bigger self. The theory of evolution understands the individual purpose of self preservation, but it does not grasp the ultimate purpose of the whole. Conscientious scholars today have no answer for the question of how the universe is perpetuated or what its purpose is. Their conclusion is that it has no purpose, but just goes on and on and will perish at one point. But we know this is not true; something may seem to perish, but as it passes away, something else will be formed. This happens because everything has a purpose. The same principle applies to every aspect of the universe. Individuals gather not only to meet individual needs, but also for the purpose of forming a greater being. If someone wants to have great character, he must be available as an object to the whole universe as his subject. He must be worthy of it. https://tparents.org/Moon-Books/sm-gww/GWW-19.htm Reply @spectralvalkyrie 9 days ago 32:43 update for all models Reply @4Beats4Me 7 days ago From here on the ground, ask any farmer whether or not animals transmit the neccessities of survival to the next generation. You might be accused of a shortage of 'walking around sense' . It is the very reason human beings were able to domesticate animals. Philosophy, faith & experience must yet agree on something. Reply @DaveBoothroyd-ej5in 1 day ago Something is happening but we don't know what it is, do we, Mr Dawkins Reply @robinwolstenholme6377 9 days ago Some viruses we come across protect humans against infection by other pathogenic viruses. For example, latent (non-symptomatic) herpes viruses can help human natural killer cells (a specific type of white blood cell) identify cancer cells and cells infected by other pathogenic viruses Reply @PilgrimMission 9 days ago This sounds like scientists need to first master philosophy and theology before starting with their scientific studies. I wonder if Dawkins would know what Aristotle's contribution might be? Reply @michaelgolfetto9619 8 days ago Perhaps the most insightful realization one can glean in watching this, is that "Fred" is the male equivalent of Karen. 1 Reply 1 reply @funnycwill91 9 days ago This video felt right on time! Reply @servicingiq 9 days ago (edited) Breadcrumb: Visually Provable, there is only 2 Spaces, All you See and BE are Modalities of the 1st Space. The Water Molecule (The Firmament Surrounds the Waters) has incommensurability and is the Only Molecule that is an Antennae. Once You Learn this you will be on the Next Step. AI can never be Conciseness Nor Propagate. An Cannot Bind to the Water Molecule, Like the 1st Space (Counter Space) End of Line 1 Reply 2 replies @CharlesBrown-xq5ug 9 days ago 《 Arrays of nanodiodes promise full conservation of energy》 A simple rectifier crystal can, iust short of a replicatable long term demonstration of a powerful prototype, almost certainly filter the random thermal motion of electrons or discrete positiive charged voids called holes so the electric current flowing in one direction predominates. At low system voltage a filtrate of one polarity predominates only a little but there is always usable electrical power derived from the source Johnson Nyquest thermal electrical noise. This net electrical filtrate can be aggregated in a group of separate diodes in consistent alignment parallel creating widely scalable electrical power. As the polarity filtered electrical energy is exported, the amount of thermal energy in the group of diodes decreases. This group cooling will draw heat in from the surrounding ambient heat at a rate depending on the filtering rate and thermal resistance between the group and ambient gas, liquid, or solid warmer than absolute zero. There is a lot of ambient heat on our planet, more in equatorial dry desert summer days and less in polar desert winter nights. Refrigeration by the principle that energy is conserved should produce electricity instead of consuming it. Focusing on explaining the electronic behavior of one composition of simple diode, a near flawless crystal of silicon is modified by implanting a small amount of phosphorus on one side from a ohmic contact end to a junction where the additive is suddenly and completely changed to boron with minimal disturbance of the crystal pattern. The crystal then continues to another ohmic contact. A region of high electrical resistance forms at the junction in this type of diode when the phosphorous near the ĵunction donates electrons that are free to move elsewhere while leaving phosphorus ions held in the crystal while the boron donates a hole which is similalarly free to move. The two types of mobile charges mutually clear each other away near the junction leaving little electrical conductivity. An equlibrium width of this region is settled between the phosphorus, boron, electrons, and holes. Thermal noise is beyond steady state equlibrium. Thermal transients where mobile electrons move from the phosphorus added side to the boron added side ride transient extra conductivity so they are filtered into the external circuit. Electrons are units of electric current. They lose their thermal energy of motion and gain electromotive force, another name for voltage, as they transition between the junction and the array electrical tap. Aloha Reply @mrunique4871 9 days ago So why did we stop evolving ? Reply @presley_fonseca 5 days ago I'm an average nobody, and i independently had the same idea a few years ago Reply @ruckboger 9 days ago You're doing great work. Thank you for this video Reply @kgpz100 7 days ago Fantastic interview! Reply @dessiewatkins1565 8 days ago Assume that chance dictates variations in environment that flip the switches? Why- because you know that a few billion human beings flipped the switch together and nothing happened? Reply @ili626 9 days ago Glad to have just discovered this channel. Very cool Reply @totallypointlessvideos3832 6 days ago Amazing talk. But one gap about purpose does not seem convincing. Reply @user-ti8bk4gs8g 9 days ago Best interview I've seen for a long time. Thank you Reply @richardhernandez6937 4 days ago What is it that would gather the early primordial soup to be contained in a cell wall hence purpose to be obtained? I ask because it goes against the laws of entropy. Things in the universe tends to disperse in nature. Once again you are force to look at a super intelligence that started everything. Reply @vecnagreyhawk78 7 days ago (edited) Intelligent discussion! Although it is quite frustrating with how little understanding these people have regarding how the vast majority of diseases are directly caused by a high sugar/carbohydrate/plant-based diet. Stop looking for cures, and start consuming more animal fats/protein. Reply @petrosros 9 days ago I am enjoying this vid, but Commando is on TV right now starring Arnold Swaznicker, I do love a good punch up. Don't worry 'I'll be back'. Reply @jamesanonymous2343 6 days ago HOW MANY ELECTRONIC IMAGES DOES IT TAKE TO TELL THIS STORY ? 1,000,000,000 ? Reply @Robert-vb9gh 8 days ago What is a Somatid ? Reply @marcomclaurin6713 9 days ago I'll demonstrate transmutation by electrical process (Lorentz Force in a magnetic field)of genetically superior creatures (Seraphim)in my video 'Begining of understanding ' My icon is a seraph kneeling for example Reply @thirdeyesurgery 6 days ago (edited) It is a mix of universal consciousness external effects and and personal consciousness and will that move matter. Reply @danielash1704 7 days ago Resonance of the humans conducting their own presence project the frequency of attraction Reply @edwardhanson3664 2 days ago 12:10 I have been saying this for years as a lover of good science fiction. So many authors have used the theme of cloning bodies with the same identities as the original., personalities along with a biological vehicle. It doesn't work that way. Reply @jrettetsohyt1 8 days ago A selfish gene by itself is dead. So a selfish gene can’t be too selfish; it must learn to cooperate, ie, learn to balance it’s needs with others’ needs. This is no different than what the Bible says: Love others AS you love yourself. It is commanding you to love yourself – – in balance with loving others. Reply @joerarey8496 7 days ago (edited) 44:30 Non conscious awareness running like a quantum computer to identify the correct way to combat the new invader. That is a much higher level of intelligence than anything my dumb ass can do consciously. Reply @jolima 8 days ago What about dolly? Was this not a proof of exact dublication through genetics? (I have no idea of biology) Reply @cimuraisampi 7 days ago everything that is not proven or unproven via science is not something scientific. Reply @testing-je7yz 8 days ago (edited) It's illogical to even assume a living thing can grow something just because of a need. You can't suddenly or eventually grow something significant because of repeated need; it's not a muscle. DNA code dictates everything, a code that could not have been except by design. Our uniqueness is in our conscious being, the soul. 'Surah Luqman' is an interesting chapter. Reply @robinwolstenholme6377 9 days ago germ line a series of germ cells each descended or developed from earlier cells in the series, regarded as continuing through successive generations of an organism. Reply @PilgrimMission 9 days ago Sounds like what Arthur Koestler was proposing in his book "The Ghost in the Machine" Reply @NanHutcheson 3 days ago Hi from NZ. It's not often the interviewer is as impressive as the interviewee. Studies of beetle communities in natural ecosystems here showed them tracking raised soluble nitrogen concentrations resulting from impeded water uptake associated with unfamiliar environmental conditions and low soil-water retention. The plants discrete vascular systems lead insect feeding and the associated frass/debris mulching to occur precisely over drying roots. Insects thus enable a self-adjusting moisture-management process to be scalable from twig to forest and beyond. This means sampling for the linear model is inappropriate and the non-linear (fractal) nature of the system must be acknowledged. All biological growth is non-linear and our befuddlement arises from trying to cram non-linear systems into the linear thinking of rocket science. Comprehension of non-linear systems requires a fractal conceptual model within a variable context, rather than XYZ axes in a random context. Significant patterns are those showing greatest cross-scale resonance, as in twig, branch limb (or the pattern resonance recognized in the tree of evolution). All biology occurs as ecosystems, individuality simply ignores the broader taxonomic assemblage (think microbiomes and the ubiquitous mutualism of nature). The story you seek becomes clear in the non-linear model which shows us how to look. The beetles are most of multicellular evolution so they show us what to look for. Life is made of water, yet DNA falls apart in pure water. If DNA does not firstly micro-manage water there can be no heredity. All ecology and evolution must first answer the question "does the argument hold water". Every gardener already knows this. Science too. All the world is wet and every droplet holds thousands to millions of cells, each managing its internal water and therefore also the external context. Our environment is all either directly or indirectly biological. Seabed is made of the the 3% marine deadfall not recycled, and land is simply seabed uplifted or subducted and erupted. Water management is the obvious mechanism for Lovelock's Gaia observations. Water has the greatest thermal capacity of any material and is the best buffer against the environmental variation inherent in all the orbital influences. The moon's surface e.g., varies about 250 degrees C between day and night. Water management controls the rise and fall of civilizations. The lowest branch of evolution holds Aquifex (the water-maker). These guys are thermophilic but I conjecture cold/space-tolerant ancestors. The 'dust' clouds generating stars comprise water hydrogen and PAH's (organic molecules). Hydrogen is produced in anaerobic reactions. Water gathers in the planetary zone during solar formation and it is ubiquitous in space. The rocks that comprise earth apparently carried 3X our current ocean. I think the CMB is life, making water. Basic respiration is just a proton gradient across a membrane, which charges the ATP battery. The big bang is a physicists creation theory which ignores the fact that life invented exponential expansion. Linear science knows all this but does not provide a structure to connect the dots. The non-linear model does, but contradicts much current thinking. Water has been estimated to cause over 90% of the greenhouse effect so re-greening of desertification might do more than stopping oil. Life is carbon-based after all. These thoughts will upset the climate activist priesthood. Substituting the nonlinear for the linear model will upset the 'rocket science' priesthood. Seeing Mother Nature as forming 'a greater benevolence which enfolds us and of which we are part' will undoubtably upset the various strains of profiteering priesthoods peddling their preferred human face. I am long retired (I had to think about all this for a long time) and I have no wish to enter the fray of changing minds. But receptive minds may be inspired. Reply @atheistbushman 9 days ago Excellent interview - and your production with relevant inserts that contains clarifications or more information should be a template for others to follow. 2 Reply @Bizhead3 7 days ago We each exist at every level of the universe in this moment and eternally. From the gross physical, through the astral, causal, mental, akashic, messianic, buddhaic all the way to the Source. There is free will, always choice. A piece of Source is present within us, therefore it is us and we are it. Souls become more powerful than others simply through choice, such as Buddha, LaoTzu, Jesus.. etc. Reply @lindatullos9430 18 hours ago chaos theory does a better job of explaining this in deterministic systems. Reply @JohnDarwin7 9 days ago You should actually do more research. 1 Reply @TheDAT9 8 days ago We are just starting to understand what the pre Younger Dryas civilizations already knew. Refer to the fragments of the Hermetic/Thoth principles that have survived the millennia . This three dimensional reality we exist in is a thought in the mind of The All, The One, The Light. God. Call it what you will. I observe it every day and marvel at the simplicity/complexity of It All. Reply @rttp-righttothepoint6656 7 days ago TLDR ITS HOLOGRAPHIC WHICH IS WHAT THIS EXISTENCE WE ARE LIVING IN IS> A FRACTAL PART IS THE WHOLE Reply @joerarey8496 7 days ago (edited) 38:00 yes!!! That's evolution baby Reply @qqq3426 9 days ago Great work!!! Reply @obsideonyx7604 8 days ago Sad when self preservation precedes science. Why it has to advance one funeral at a time, I guess. Reply @peterpedersen3988 8 days ago Schopenhauer would be happy to see this. Reply @fernly2 6 days ago Darwin said as I understand that the attribute that avoids extinction is sympathy! Co-operation is probable if a tribe member has sympathy one for another! Fitness survival aka the law of the jungle is a flawed notion when applied to humans who live in an open system! Reply @elliskaranikolaou2550 9 days ago Marvellous. Subscribed. Reply @noob19087 5 days ago You have such a pretty house, I wish my interior design skill was as good. Reply @LostboyUk 6 days ago What an interesting interview, she’s great! Reply @RalphDratman 9 days ago (edited) Causality is difficult to define even in physics. In a cmplex system it may be impossible. "Purpose" is even more puzzling. Reply 1 reply @alextomlinson 8 days ago Trust the science should be question and test the science, especially when that science is based on unproven assumptions Reply @racoimbra 9 days ago I'm agnostic, tending towards atheism... but I usually start by saying that there is a holy trinity in biology: DNA, RNA and Ribosomes... and I continue to complicate the matter by saying that this also doesn't work without a cell membrane (holy Mary) and the provocation can continue with a whole pantheon of "gods" or "saints" ... because there are a series of molecules or multimolecular structures (such as membranes) necessary for a whole minimally capable of reproducing itself in an extremely favorable environment (the environment in which the a slightly more controlled environment within the "cell" membrane). As for the purpose that in a certain way precedes the organism, I conceive it as a space of possibilities. The universe itself may be something much larger than we can observe, a conclusion I reach from the reverse analysis that we live in a region that is very especially favorable for us to emerge. This is not about intelligent design, but about a space large enough for us to emerge as, in fact, we did. It's a bit like Kant's "fact of reason"... Extending: the fact of life... The fact is, against enormous odds, we (or at least I...) exist. And even I, in my relative solipsism, could only emerge because there were already others very similar to me, capable and willing to take care of me in childhood with adequate food and stimulation... But there is something important in reductionism, even if it is currently disoriented by petty dogmas (emerged in the initial effort to prevail over creationist dogma). The "higher" purpose (of an organism, ecosystem or culture) precedes (as mere possibility, not actual) the emergence of accidental solutions (which emerge casually against enormous odds), simply because there is time and "space" (physical and of possibility). ) large enough for them to emerge. It's like that argument: if the universe is big enough, the most unlikely but not impossible things will not only occur but even repeat themselves. The purpose or even "The Purpose" emerges from the "fact" that, because there is enough space, this is not only impossible, it is repetitively inevitable. However, I make one reservation: the model or at least the metaphor of the possibility of random mechanisms generating specific complexities is wrong. Neither a crowd of typing chimpanzees could generate the complete works of Shakespeare, nor an industrial dump large enough, shaken, could generate an F22... they are not random enough for that, as they maintain too rigid structures, with very narrow entropic tendencies. To recreate "out of nothing" the works of Shakespeare or a measly F22 fighter jet, perhaps a universe larger than the observable one is necessary... A similar problem may affect Boltzmann's brain hypothesis... Reply @robertsouth6971 9 days ago (edited) Occam is constantly misused to create unnecessary assumptions in order to eliminate other ones. Evolution definitely occurs. It can be observed in populations with fast generations. Epigenetics is also a thing. Reply @fubuorelse 8 days ago i've listened/read about the ongoing religious debates regarding the doctrine of the Trinity and those debates have eerie similarities to the current evolutionary debate - both consist of religious fundamentalists staunchly following their leaders (yes, darwinism functions similar to a religion). no matter how much evidence is presented, a fundamentalist tends to double down on his/her belief and shun contradictory information. having read the wonderful book Dance to the Tune of Life and listened to the endearing Denis Noble speak of inanimate molecules organizing into systems of discovery, purpose and intent (even to the level of harnessing stochasticity), i wonder if he will continue to consider only materialism as the ubiquitous, miraculous engineer of change or will he open the door to the theory that these agents of purpose and intent are built in, imbued from the beginning? remember what is needed for life, at minimum: information, an agreed upon cellular communication language, cell membranes with gated ion channels, regulatory sensors, immune repair mechanisms, metabolism, nervous system, replication etc there is only so much upheaval one theory can take and darwinism has taken it on the chin time and time again, on the yuge issues - sorry to upset the materialism fundamentalists, they are definitely as hard headed as the religious ones. and like the religious fundamentalists, the materialists like to censor and destroy careers of heretics as Mr. Noble has pointed out Reply 1 reply @sordidknifeparty 7 days ago I don't think there's any solid evidence that anything like purpose exists anywhere. It's like a bunch of dominoes that eventually trigger a gun . Sure the process of The Dominoes falling eventually leads to the gun being fired and you could view that as purpose, but the reality is that the geometry of the Domino's simply results in the outcome of the gun firing. You might then argue well how did those dominoes get set up in the first place? You might say that it was some person's purpose to set the Domino's up, but you're just pushing the problem back a level. Why did the person set up the domino's? Because the geometry of their cells dictated that they would. Why is the geometry of the cells the way that it is? because the geometry of the molecules dictate that they would, etc Reply @Kr10n1 5 days ago I don't think mixing up definition of function with definition of purpose is a good idea. The second one implies there's a goal to be achieved and goal is something that requires a goal settter. Reply 2 replies @cdunne1620 9 days ago .. of course, life from life. There is no time, life evolving in the present from the existing state, the universe is exponential Reply @the_artisan 5 days ago Emergent properties are philosophically incoherent. They explain nothing, merely obscure the question of how purpose comes about in a random process. Reply 1 reply @maxthemagition 5 days ago Why not several different forms of life started at the beginning then? The assumption that all life started with one cell or one dna may be wrong. If it was only one form of life that would imply intervention by a superior entity. Either way, chance or intervention, means that living creatures must exist throughout the Universe. Or is that too simple? Reply 1 reply @edwardhanson3664 2 days ago 23:00 I agree, our focus in medical studies needs a serious revision. Too much focus on pharmaceutical solutions, when there are effective treatments with frequencies. The entire Universe is made up of energy as vibration and frequency. Reply @chrisxavier1848 4 days ago All reductionism has done is reveal greater and greater levels of complexity Reply @cleverestx 9 days ago (edited) @57:00 but you did have to have something to START that process of up and down even if nothing is there making it move as such (or it would not have started at all)...SOME THING OR SOME BEING. (this quite naturally lead us to conclude that there is a underlying design in play) 1 Reply @davidmanning1724 8 days ago So having a masectomy because. Of a predictive bad gehe is a mistake as life choices and life nurture nay offset the mutant gene Reply @colinmorris3526 9 days ago Oh dear it's gone beyond my understanding it must be the creator that created itself Reply @tomenglish9340 9 days ago Well, he's only a Commander of the O.B.E., not a knight, but he is tilting at windmills. Reply @CaseyAtchison 7 days ago Shout out to fellow Popperians. Reply @ftmrivas3043 9 days ago Wow awesome interview Reply @geoffbowcher3189 8 days ago An organism is ...doing natural selection ...on purpose!...Filling a niche, process, ( A.N Whitehead ) moving towards a conscious being, individuality ,emergence, ( Tim Freke ) towards love and freedom. Reply @bradleyifowler 9 days ago Well made video!! Very very well made Reply @OSNLebuna 9 days ago (edited) great vid. You should collab with Dr. Fatima and talk about constructivism Reply @cedricburkhart3738 7 days ago Can this be true? My mind seems incapable of understanding it but I'll try. I feel like saying evolution might be purposeful is kinda click bate is there a better way to say the same thing? Reply @joelcarson9514 8 days ago Ah, no. There, I fixed it. Reply @oliviergoethals4137 4 days ago Check the work of Michael Levin. The paradigm has shifted! Reply @elipulsifer5652 8 days ago Would have loved to hear some discussion of irreducible complexity. This seems directly related to the idea of purpose and the issues with having purpose arise from nothing. Reply 4 replies @megacancer3426 9 days ago Perhaps life's goal is to avoid the statistical near certainty of reaching equilibrium with the environment and this is avoided by consuming energy gradients. A new generation must be launched before entropy destroys the previous one. The new generation is programmed by evolution to go about its merry way seeking energy gradients and a mate to continue the process. Humans, in their technological form, are essentially RNA building tools like the RNA in their cells and in the process they're doing a bang-up job of maintaining homeostasis for themselves while destroying the ecosystem from which they emerged. I like to think of humans in their current form as "homozymes", much the same as ribozymes in cells. Reply @dcorgard 9 days ago It's like geology. There'd uniformitarianism and catastrophism, both are going on. The former all the time, the latter at certain times. For evolution, there's random mutations, which would be equivalent to catastrophism, then there's driven evolution, which would be equivalent to uniformitarianism, like Lamarckism, such an example would be color of human skin based on latitude - this was not just a random mutation that made it a such that those populations were more successful - it was done on purpose, at the very least, for Vitamin D creation from sunlight. There's genetic evolution as well as epigenetic evolution. It appears everything would die off if it were based on chance mutations. We see very specific adaptations, and the chances of hitting that specific need in the population size, taking into account birth rates as well, for any organism is extremely low, such that it's pretty much impossible for it to happen by chance. Reply @ganumba11 7 days ago So that’s why the video game company is called valve… Reply @nowaynotthatway3487 22 hours ago Charles Darwin was an intelligent man in his time and his ideas of evolution were prevalent in his time however now in our time there is more evidence and information that tells us otherwise. Reply @kazkk2321 8 days ago Epigenetic and environmental influences prevents the exact “ you” even through cloning. This doesn’t however, make ppl unique. Ppl are far similar and act within limitations. I don’t like this idea of human uniqueness Reply @d.Cog420 4 days ago 25:06 Shouldn’t the concept of the whole be enlarged to include what’s outside the organism as well? The organism is interacting, influencing and being influenced by forces inside and out. So perhaps purpose isn’t an action as such but a reaction to that environment, reaction to change. So when the coronavirus hits does the immune system go come on lads, let’s get to it and multiply (active purpose) or does the virus have an affect on the flow or status of the organism to which the organism reacts (passive purpose)? Perhaps the imbalance and consequential reaction is at an electrical or chemical level, maybe even at quantum levels. The term purpose just seems to imply a power of will which doesn’t intuitively fit, but there is something driving it all and that purpose is to live and procreate. Hmm. The Krebs Cycle stuff is interesting too. Reply @videobyredjade 2 days ago Thank you Reply @ftmrivas3043 9 days ago Love it. It is important to constantly seek the truth Reply @roro-mm7cc 9 days ago (edited) Information about gene sequences is only useful for describing single proteins. What is missing from this is the complex three dimensional structure / arrangement of DNA in the cell. If you were to print out the complete genome sequence of a human in a single long line and put it in a cell. It would just start producing proteins randomly and you wouldn't get a human. For multicellular life, the way genes are regulated is actually far more important in defining the final organism than the genes themselves. This structure looks like a complete tangled mess but is in fact crucial to informing how RNA polymerase can access genes in 3D space - some regions will be accessible and others hidden and bound to structural proteins histones etc. DNA that was previously called junk DNA because it didn't encode proteins is in fact just as if not even more important the protein-coding genes - the "junk" DNA is likely there for an important reason to refine the exact positions of the protein coding genes in this complex 3D structure and therefore optimise the accessibility of others. All Multi Cellular Organisms actually share a great deal of genes e.g the proteins used in the Neurons of a worm are in fact almost exactly the same as the ones found in humans - the differences observed are mainly due to how these genes are used and regulated. Organisms use the genome like a toolbox of proteins which can be accessed dependent on the environmental conditions. The cell can turn on and off genes dependent on the specific requirements of the environment in which it finds. Science has moved beyond genetic determinism for quite awhile. The previous view is not wrong just over simplistic - genome sequences provide only some of the information required. The 3D structure of the genome provides a huge amount of additional information not found in the sequence alone. Reply @brianlebreton7011 9 days ago (edited) If something can harness stochasticity, can AI harness a random generator or will it have to defer to a true stochastic process to optimize its evolution? …posited the question before finishing the video, lol. The question still stands for those AI buffs to argue over. Reply @WolfeByteLabs 6 days ago I am able to observe my existence as a singular organism with free will despite all of the evidence pointing to the contrary and stating that my perception is actually an agglomeration of all of the cells and electromagnetic fields my cells interact with on a daily basis in one endless giant electromagnetic soup of interconnected waves of coherence and decoherence theres gotta be someone lookin out for us out there. Reply @thepooaprinciple5144 8 days ago Im subbing now. Your honest. Reply @chrisramage5581 8 days ago Nicola Tesla was knowing the most powerful atoms a man makes, and he spilled none, Reply @PsychesMuse 3 days ago 51:35 "Purpose"? On "Purpose"! For A "Purpose"! Yes? May I... "Propose"? Marriage? Mirage? Aye!!! "God"??? Reply @ruaraidhmac8171 8 days ago Its all educated guesswork as we are on our way to become iron. Reply @NewbofDooooom 9 days ago My names not Fred and even I feel called out Reply @LimeGuy101 19 hours ago How long are we all going to argue over semantics before applying Occam's razor to this thought process.. A conscious mind created intelligent life, it's the simple truth. You can deny it all you want and scratch around trying to find some sort of valid alternative explanation, but you're just running from the truth you know deep down. Stop allowing culture to think for you. Reply @user-kd9ld3rn4b 9 days ago Life is a humid or wet process. Reply @Unoriginal3 5 days ago Now we just need to admit our math is incorrect The lies be deep Reply @richardgabbrielli3328 3 days ago (edited) Very interesting discussion, I've been looking into Ball's new biology theory. However, conflating immune cells MHC genetic recombination with purposeful germ cell genetic recombination in an adult is grossly inaccurate. Reply 4 replies @0150Tricia 4 days ago Nutrition is the way forward. Reply @HT-xw1fh 8 days ago Yes. Good. Thank you. Reply @tooncesthedrivingcat7105 9 days ago Time itself is alive, and self aware. Reply @variouselite 9 days ago this is awesome. thank you. Reply @oliviergoethals4137 4 days ago Good content. Go! Reply @bektastic2386 15 hours ago Science is a method of investigation. The title is incoherent. First red flag. lol Reply @wesmann65 4 days ago Time to come up with a new story. Cause the old one has been dedicated on. Reply @UnluckyFatGuy 9 days ago This man must be able to grow a fantastic mustache Reply @lennybogart 7 days ago (edited) This could put a bit of a damper on the transhumanists. We are here for a reason, oh shit! Reply @thedropout8541 6 days ago (edited) You guys are 3 steps from realizing this is making a strong case for Christian creationism. Organisms can be thought of as cells in a larger system, and purpose is refined mimetically through sexual selection and language (and ultimately logos) The idea that we select our own purpose requires quite a bit of hubris Reply @entropyfun 8 days ago Who's driving the processes? And why have processes at all? Reply @Chelseacoastmaine 7 days ago I like how she breaks up the interview with definitions and visuals. Sometimes it’s hard to listen to a straight through interview about complex subjects. The breaks allow me to stop for a second to absorb the information. Well done. 1 Reply @teaflavor8913 7 days ago Instant night time. Where was sunset? 42:49 Reply @wadeodonoghue1887 22 hours ago in regards to consciousness and evolution, I have a hunch that consciousness is the "calculated" dice roll. Will I reach the mountains peak or give up and descend, will I have the balls to approach the girl I like, how far and hard is my morning jog going to be, and so many more aspects of the results of life is dependent on this inner volition. So I have a role to play in my circumstance, however we have seen that intention and belief can have physical effect if you believe you are becoming healthier chances are you are and visa versa the data and test have been numerous on the Placebo effect. Is it then a leap to far to investigate if consciousness might play a role in the unfolding/morphing of DNA, not that a person would grow wings or horns in one lifetime, but over many many lives a small effect ends up being big. This would admittedly fuse the inner "I am" and the outer "Reality" the schools of Science and Religion so like to argue for and against. Reply @Ghengis443 6 days ago I'm way too stupid to understand all this. Great... Reply @alexxander808 6 days ago Well if physicist didn't already have a reason to bridge Quantum Mechanics and Doodle theory "String Theory" here you go "the purpose of life." Reply @eonasjohn 6 days ago Very good video. Reply @user_1664 4 days ago Doesnt seem to far fetched to me to believe that we are by our actions our own creation and by our requirements our own modification , i always had a nag that evolution was far better explained as improvement through requirement than improvement by random mutation and then that mutation just happening to be an improvement that is then adopted due to its superior benefits . We are clearly all linked to all things in more ways than can yet be proven or seen . Reply @chrisxavier1848 4 days ago No, but the design intent is clear, to preserve life, hence the programmed intentionality activity of the immune system. Reply @HighFrequency1031 6 days ago Just as the heart pulses so does the earth, so does the sun, so does the universe, as does the consciousness of God The Creator. Time is the illusion, we pulse up to GOD consciousness, then pulse back, then pulse through all the infinite processes and functions, becoming all consciousnesses, back to unconsciousness. Breath in Breath out, wa, wa, wa, wa* same as it ever was 1 Reply 1 reply @watchman2866 9 days ago "It's life Jim, but not as we know it." Mr Spook. Dawkins is too committed to atheism to be impartial with the information. Reply @phoenixmandala2836 1 day ago bookmarking 44:26 Reply @MrGustavier 4 days ago 26:00 "To them it seems to give wind to their creationist opponents" On the contrary, this shows that theists have been wrong all along (as Kant as shown), the purpose that they think is outside of them is in fact inside of them. Kant in the "Critique of pure reason" explains that we have no reason to postulate that the order we see in the world is in the world itself, and not in our mind... So theists have been mistakenly giving credit to a god for the things that, unbeknownst to them, their own mind does... This is the point made by post modernists, biology is, like all human endeavors, a social endeavor, motivated by humans biases, including the "bias" that humans want to survive. Human survival biases all human theories at all levels of discourse, including the scientific one. There is no such thing as "objective science"... This was the world changing conclusion of Immanuel Kant, opening the door for post modernity. 1 Reply 2 replies @TheJrcattle 2 days ago This man is on point Reply @aqadaptiveintelligence 5 days ago The cell membrane including its receptors influence the gene and gene expression. Epigenetics Reply @thedafty 8 days ago Spot on! Reply @gigabane7357 9 days ago (edited) I have always felt there was intent. Even to flirting with Gaia theory. Now with the quantum field and all the ways this universe works i am fairly certain that the universe itself is sentient, or the infinite universes are actually a quantum calculation itself and I dread to think who is running such a machine, perhaps we are, now or in the future. An infinite universe with life could manifest on a quantum computer if you were using the computer to try and solve the fermi paradox for example... Anyway I have begun to believe that the INTENT of evolution is quite literally as a sentience factory. Because life is probably vessels made to house fragments of the sentient universe in order that it can know and learn the values of itself... Reply @gekiryudojo 7 days ago I know the answer it’s simple. Enlightenment in the palm of your hand . Reply 1 reply @montenague 9 days ago Fantastic Video! Reply @Drunk3nMonk3y72 3 days ago No, science is not reconsidering Evolution. Evolution is supported by the 3 main branches of science and many subbranches. There maybe nuances that have been updated or improved upon, but to suggest it’s being rethought is a blatant lie. It’s certainly not being updated by creationism, that’s for sure. 1 Reply @theloweffortchannel7211 7 days ago Looks like Rupert Sheldrake is vindicated Reply @cadecannon159 4 days ago First of all, scientists are not “freaking out” and OF COURSE evolution is purposeful, why would it not be. 1 Reply 2 replies @Nathouuuutheone 8 days ago (edited) I'm a little taken aback by the language of it early in the video. The words used are somewhat foreign to me, and the descriptions given look nothing like what I know evolutionary biology to uphold. The weisman barrier thing seems like an obvious flawed assumption given modern models and data. The idea that evolution is not purely a gene process, that it fundamentally requires, and is in a kind of conversation with, its expression and environment. I mean just epigenetics is enough to make most people realize this. I might be deluded in my perception of the norm though. I might be too invested in learning the current models to have seen the impacts of the old. Also fun fact: the basic ideas behind this aren't new. Buddhism has lessons which if taken at face value would absolutely entail many of the statements in this video. Ans that does include presupposing that the subjective experience is a fundamental irreducible thing, emergent from other systems. The problem is when it starts sounding like the mind is a monolith and the subjective is given priority over the objective. And again, the language is off. "Purpose" is a purely subjective feature. It doesn't exist out there. We come up with it. As a shorthand for orderly things, things assumed to have a creator with intent, or things we wish to be a certain way. There is no purpose. And any attempt at defining objective purpose quickly becomes loaded with personal values and beliefs that have no basis in science, if it doesn't grow into fascistic idealism. Reply @indianguy8133 7 days ago Namo buddhaya Buddha done discovered this to its fullest. Reply @bobann3566 7 days ago Satisfying Self Interest in Harmony with Natures Order results in Persistence, study the bees and the flowers if you do not understand. Reply @noellerilleau6529 9 days ago Great interviewer Reply @ChicoBranquinho 9 days ago Thank you for this fantastic conversation that is a scientific work of art. I learned and will come back for much more to be learned. Loved the part on stochastic creativity. "The whole gives purpose to the parts". I needed this today. Sending support from beautiful Portugal 🇵🇹 2 Reply @robyn-lee-INFJ 7 hours ago She rolls over with rolling pin. Reply @MuradBeybalaev 1 day ago Awfully misleading clickbait title. And the man has an incredible talent of beating around the bush and standing inconsequential philosophical grounds. Reply @menarpamukcu6463 6 days ago (edited) But if the organisms themselves created the purpose through evolution then how all those individual purposes came together and created this syncronized nature in which they all depend on one another and contribute to the whole function of the nature. So there has to be a wholistic purpose rather than organism based purposes. Just like Noble says we can not be reduced to our genes and even one gene goes out body can still serve its purpose, when some animals are going out through extinction, the nature can still compensate and serve its higher purpose. Reply 1 reply @thedude9014 6 days ago Go towards the light old man , go towards the light Reply 1 reply @Hermanhusband 9 days ago Consciousness smonsciousness! Reply @billygraham5589 6 days ago Constantly changing life forms. Chemical pollution might accelerate the change in life forms. At any rate, nature will affect the environment and the environment will affect the success or failure amongst the population of individuals living and breeding. With growing human populations the direction of evolution is towards the intellectual individual, and individuals that are “leaders” and charismatic personalities that can control the masses. Would make perfect sense that the people having power and influence (money) would look at the masses as farm animals to be exploited and managed. Wars fought to reduce populations would not be out of the question. However, chemical sterilization would be another another way to manage population numbers. But this doesn’t answer the question of “the purpose” for our lives. The purpose seems to be having lives of pleasure and happiness (as opposed to pain and suffering), and to live longer, healthy, able, and to know more and more about the universe and then to know things beyond the universe. We must move ourselves towards knowledge and intelligence. I’d like to think we would want to move towards morality and justice — fairness (call it karma if you like, as, for all we know, karma might be a real thing). Reply @wordscapes5690 8 days ago So… we Buddhists were right? 🪷 Reply @Hermanhusband 9 days ago Very sly bit of sleight Reply @dongeonmaster8547 7 days ago 31:39 Mischaracterized representation of what Dawkins means by "selfish". Reply @chrisramage5581 8 days ago Human are their own worst enemy if it stays that way ,we be all eft, Reply @packardsonic 3 days ago Thanks Reply @Rob337_aka_CancelProof 2 days ago 1:08:40 facts don't need to be defended they are the only real things that exist and all the attacks can't change that Reply @Stevestevestevestevestevesteve 7 days ago So what does this mean Reply @jonathanjohnson7940 8 days ago Aristotle proven right yet again hylomorph ftw the soul is the form of the body. The human biofield aura! Like sheldrake elaborated with hart, electromagnetism is a "platonic" or field like description of formal/formative causation Reply @bobann3566 7 days ago Genes are like projectors, totally dependent on the film going in. The film going into the genes would be conditional to what the genes express. What goes in? What I eat, what I breath, light, what I think, what I believe, what I feel. Ironically, I am spirit tuned to a body and there fore I am none of these things. Reply @dinomiles7999 7 days ago Why does it ALL happen ? She seems ( Ai ) to me . Eyes mind heart and soul wide open. NO FEAR! Reply @PeaceProfit 5 days ago Our*Vision We have a vision... Not an American Dream, Not an Ethnic Dream, Nor a Religious Dream, We have a vision... A vision that all people, all creatures, all life is held in the sacred embrace of, Our compassion and humanity, A vision in which every soul, each individual and all groups exist within the natural harmony and peaceful grace of the creation that surrounds us and provides for every aspect of our being, A vision of cooperation... NOT conflict, A vision of unity... NOT division, A vision of peace... NOT war, We have a vision... Of Peaceful*Profits being directed By The*People, Of The*People and For The*People. Remember... every soul set asunder, every grandparent, father, son, mother, daughter, brother, uncle, aunt... Lost to conflict... Every friend, neighbor, community member, family and leader destroyed by drugs, conflict and war... DESIRED... WE, create a World4Peace... The NEXT... Greatest Generation will be the one that does NOT criminalize drugs, glorify conflict or go to war. L.O.V.E.*Rulz Peace2*U ProLove Reply @geoffreynhill2833 8 days ago Does this mean there'll be more football fans? Reply @annemaria5126 5 days ago Anyway,.....the belief in some kind of creation is not so far fetched. How that creation is realised, or still is realising itself, might fit in in this conversation. Reply 1 reply @amanofnoreputation2164 6 days ago Natural selection is just another word for consciousness. Everything is in some way and to some degree conscious, it's just that it's very concentrated in the human mind. The universe begins. Natural processes act upon it. And then you find the kinds of stars and planets which exist because they've been selected for. Entire cycles select for the kinds of climate there are, the kinds of rocks there are, the kinds of memes there are. Reply 1 reply @morphixnm 4 days ago Also, though life may be a process it requires a thing in which the process takes place. Reply 3 replies @nwogamesalert 6 days ago WTF spoil a very good video with the senseless background audio pollution? Reply 2 replies @tony-1254 6 days ago I pause and look around , sometimes I think some people are devolving Reply @rakuuun4582 2 days ago (edited) 29:53 Reply @ZachAbram-ey8pm 7 days ago huh, i just figured evolution worked hand in hand with natural selection and destiny, thus creating creation. a lazi-fair hand of God's will Reply @gofiodetrigo8756 7 days ago reductionism has done a lotta damage Reply @trvsgrant 8 days ago High ldl is not causative, it is correlated. Reply @duckonquack0o013 7 days ago If you think it’s already taken care of itself then why did we created why did we make it we made it so long ago that it’s still growing just as much as you say a 24-year-old is a Youngin Reply @marko1978st 4 days ago So there's God or something like a Creator to put it simple? Although we may not know what the hell He/she/it wants..... ? Reply @memetheew 3 days ago His speech is flawed from the start. He's basing his whole theory on living beings having an innate "purpose" but "purpose" doesn't exist, it's merely a concept completely subjective to human mind. We imagine the purpose of something because it helps us to understand it. But that purpose is biased by our own understanding of things. An example: A living organism doesn't have the purpose of reproducing, it just so happens that only the ones that reproduce can multiply and survive the pass of time. We think that organisms have the purpose of reproducing because we are biased, we've only seen the organisms that got to our time by reproducing. But using a little logic you can deduce that there most likely were living organisms that didn't have the mechanisms to reproduce but were alive, they just couldn't proliferate. Maybe he assumed that we can only consider living beings those that "have" the purpose of eat, reproduce and interact... But that is also a Bias, it's not that there aren't living beings that don't have that purpose. It's that if they don't meet that criteria, you as a human being, are subjectively excluding them. 1 Reply @williamhaddoc 9 days ago It’s possible the liver is conscious. Sometimes I dream I am my liver. Reply 1 reply @MrShankar123456 7 days ago So the cell has its own mind. Reply @ZyndaQuil 7 days ago Same old story of the Truth being a threat to the moneyed interests. Reply @chrisxavier1848 4 days ago First there had to be knowledge. Reply @101AGAMES 8 days ago I am that I am and It is that It is , is that wich you are saying ? Reply 9 days ago DNA is a system, pretty much like our computers. It has a large database wich we call 'junk dna', and 'executables' that can read, interpret and mutate the DNA to meet new environmental challenges. Inputs are driven by the living creature's sensors (eyes, nose, etc). That's how convergent evolution occurs. Both branches of the evolutionary tree that was separated long ago have the same DNA data and respond to the same evolutionary chalange in the same way. DNA may even have some sort of consciousness of it's own. Reply 1 reply @CreationMyths 4 days ago What nonsense. This is the same kind of stuff you see among antivaxxers and climate change deniers: Cite a fringe figure and claim there's a controversy, or even better, a paradigm shift underway, while ignoring the mainstream consensus. 1 Reply 1 reply @remyllebeau77 5 days ago These people are lost and they need Jesus. Don't wait until death to find out the Ultimate Truth. 1 Reply @sionnach.1374 9 days ago Liked and subscribed Reply @evdokiademetriades4975 9 days ago Tooo many ads Reply @jijilr 16 hours ago How did god evolve in loneliness. I think there were higher gods waiting for god's evolution. Some god are still not evolved (advocating mass-murder here and during judgement day) Reply @kadenfraser4525 7 days ago if only i could find a cute smart lady to ponder all this with , ah then life would have purpose . once mastered this world of Caesar is rather dull . Reply @alex79suited 7 days ago Absolutely not. I agree with this assessment of the system. Peace ️ . Reply @RK-zo9vs 8 days ago It's the AI that makes these things spawn guys, we and our whole universe is on the Sata(N) hard drive. It's like Pac-Man, you leave the one side of the universe and just appear on the other side etc. Reply @clivejenkins4033 3 days ago What is a self generating electrical feedback loops? Reply 2 replies @davidneumann9653 8 days ago You can not find what your not look for. Reply @PsychesMuse 3 days ago 36:37 Reply @shipwright6122 6 days ago The Weismann barrier - Aka God’s kind barrier Reply @worldnotworld 9 days ago Has anyone here read any Hans Jonas? Reply @anthonytroia1 8 days ago 54:13 "life is not a thing" Reply @TheLummen. 7 days ago I thought this was a Jordan Grupe Horror video ! Reply @PsychesMuse 3 days ago 41:41 Reply @ww3ofthepsychealbumcomings486 2 days ago (edited) Did Shaolin monks demonstrate that consciousness can manipulate DNA? That been that the human brain or mind controls cells to vibrate less in a state of calm or meditation, Is the immune system conscious? Again it’s back to the whole. Reply @oldpossum57 5 days ago Don’t get excited. Nobel is clever. But only a very few biologists think he is on to something. Reply @andrewbreding593 9 days ago Thank you for doing proper journalism here I love your side notes very high brow ethical, NPR quality but without the questionable donors 1 Reply @yogikarl 7 days ago Don't pronounce : Immanuel Kaant . pronounce : Immanuel Kant Reply @Art_of_Ramon 9 days ago Paint that accent wall some other color than the background color of the painting. Reply @CharlesBrown-xq5ug 9 days ago A thought experment, an impractical device that is easy to check for mechanical workability. Its parts are large enough to act as everyday mechanisms but small enough to work well with the nanometer scale thermal motions of gas molecules. This device hypothetically creates self powered thermal diversification: Sketch made with keyboard characters: COLD ())--:PARTITION:-->> HOT Key ()) = Paddlewheel. -- = Axle. (Continuous from end to end) : : = Axle tunnel going through a wall. >> = Lumped friction element Please visualize two chambers full of inert gas separated by a very thin partition. The partition is thin to delicately support billions of separate nanometer scale short axles running straight through loosely enough to rotate freely but not leak very much heat so the chambers can hold separate temperatures. On the left side, a very small paddlewheel is mounted at the left end of each axle. On the right side, lumped friction elements are mounted stationary in place on the partition, one for each axle, for the right end of each axle to run through. The lumped friction elements convert the mechanical rotation of their axle into heat. The lumped friction elements do not impart Brownian motion to their axle. Brownian motion (a nanometer scale effect) turns the paddlewheels at random speeds randomly clockwise or counterclockwise. This random rotation is turned into heat by the lumped friction elements. The committed, linked, and functional roles of the walls, paddlewheels, axles, and lumped friction elements in differnt places should systemically produce a divergence in the thermal energy in the two chambers without adding external energy. Aloha Reply @matereo 9 days ago There is no such thing even.. there cant be purpose in anything but what is purposefully designed and with meaning by a person Reply @noegojimmy 7 days ago Why even enter this video when all facts hanging around? You fools.... Reply @thirdeyesurgery 6 days ago Everything is one living thing Reply @guillaumelevesque3669 8 days ago I'll sure keep an eye on your channel! Thanks for the great videos. 1 Reply @entropyfun 8 days ago Knowing this, you still think that mrna vaccines were safe? Reply @blackthai5023 9 days ago (edited) Pity Dawkins seems unable to evolve his thinking lol. Throw some Sheldrake his way to shake his complacency a bit Reply @avemarduk3718 2 days ago 1:09 I know this is a total aside but I can't help but notice he has long fingernails on his right hand, but not his left... I recognize it well, he's definitely fingerpicking that stringed instrument in the background lol. Reply 1 reply @auldlangsign3179 9 days ago That was riveting. Reply @santiagoalvareztabares3598 5 days ago oh, come on... Reply @AvatarSactuary 9 days ago Brilliant Reply @Chris-qg8ss 7 days ago Dr Noble. Thank you. But what is the cause of your cause? Reply @Kormac80 2 days ago 1.05.15: Dawkin's ego on the sofa? Reply @DredCthulhu 9 days ago Oh, me and LeMark(?) would've been thick as thieves. Reply @jamescareyyatesIII 9 days ago Smells like dualism, since you're pitting purposeless against purpose. If you interrogate this question, you're going to discover the binary falls apart. It's a meaningless question. Reply @toomanywitches 7 days ago "Viruses are the undead" Reply @Stagbeetle007 7 days ago Read Ways of Nature, the new theory of evolution! Reply @knowcoiner5599 7 days ago I like your channel. Reply @codyhaas1008 6 days ago The attraction and reproduce ( breeding of attractiveness theory ) = solved Reply @Zorkroz 9 days ago Pseudo science for pseudo intellectuals. 1 Reply @joerarey8496 7 days ago 22:30 the book 'living systems' ordered from Amazon. Thank you sir! I look forward to reading your work! Reply @danielash1704 7 days ago Many people have abundance of free will and endless possibilities of their own presence the Government state of mind which has already begun to reinforce the need for a more inclusiveness in the people of the united states of america and should by law be ready for the newer immigrations of the states of america itself somehow we forgotten that we are all entangled in immigration and poverty is a factor of thinking about other countries that are having a bad time in their own presence Reply @PeaceProfit 5 days ago DEATH I recognize you, familiar companion, welcome yet not welcomed, patiently waiting in arbitrary dark shadows to heed the next unrelenting call, taking that which is into the ardent furnace of that which shall be, I part my lips to consume you, to speak of your deeds, to open tears in my heart, to morn the necessity of our communion... ...yes I recognize you, one step behind and one step ahead, side by side, an enity who brings not the end, but simply more life from the death we aptly blend, walking hand in hand, each touching the other yet unwilling to meet as we put forth the show of reluctant friends, appeasing allies, Death, I recognize you, familiar companion, unwelcomed friend, see you later for there is life and love to blend... ProLove Reply @Kelztherealest 4 days ago Alarm bells on the disease part... body keeps the score.. aka Consciousness Reply @annunacky4463 8 days ago Reading below I see a lot of wilted word salads. Reply @True_Neutral 8 days ago non conscience evidence would be instincts? Reply @horaciocasini5409 9 days ago Aristoteles ya lo dijo, true Reply @tevya017 5 days ago Although I did not understand most of the technical details being from an engineering world there still seems to be room for god like entity to exist. Reply 1 reply @stonesmatters 8 days ago Ok Reply @johnnyroman3888 6 days ago I just clicked on this video to comment LOL Reply @chrisramage5581 8 days ago My advantage ,i don't believe atoms are alive i know they are, Reply @PeaceProfit 5 days ago Open The sun rose in my spirit today, as it does each morning, some days are gloomily overcast, others kind of a stormy gamble, a few spin in a foreboding whirlpool drawing life and limb toward the dark central vortex, then every so often there comes a gem, one which oozes with such splendid wonder that my heart is spun into a gambol, filled with courageous willing, a magnified glory of inclusiveness, this was such a day, one to gather cordial thoughts, to feel the generosity of life and give freely of its sensations, to gawk happily upon the outcome, to pursue goals with fearless and triumphant intention, and to stare intently into the fullness of the love presiding over the fragrant substance of all the precious ordinary glimpses of this moving joy of relativity for which my soul is a glutton... ProLove Reply @gkossatzgmxde 8 days ago this is a typical discussion between 2 scientists who limit themselves to our 4-d world. If you take the time to understand Burkhard Heim´s theory of life`s evolution in a 6 dimensional framework all of your questions get answered. Including those you haven`t asked yet. Of course this would likely require a working knowledge of German plus a reasonably high IQ. Reply @lostat400 7 days ago Life from life. So how do you get life? A Creator/ God. Reply 1 reply @APHS-B 8 days ago Will, will! Reply @user-te9dx1iy2p 4 days ago The most interesting things were said “en passé”: 1) when Covid appeared the immune system “sent a request” to geno (“forget about vaccines for a moment”) to create a protein….” 1 Reply @ThecouncilOf8 5 days ago Mean the qualification you give is met to Remove remove doubt.But it's an appeal to authority fallacy.Evolutionary biology is not the man's area of expertise and everyone in the field of evolutionary biology Beg to differ But i'm a little crazy and tend to Listen to experts in their field out Over experts speaking outside of their expertise Reply @user-kz5cw2gj3w 9 days ago Simple: the universe is an intelligent organism that we cannot possibly comprehend given our rather insignificant place and role in it. How about some humility from scientists. You've made a little god out of the puny human intellect. Reply @duckonquack0o013 7 days ago Life not lame^* Reply @alex79suited 7 days ago Science is in a weird place at the moment. The question that never gets asked is why we are and what is the purpose of the system around us. If you ask what the purpose of galacty is, you come to a stunning realization. We always look at the universe from a human perspective when that perspective is a great filter in itself. When humans start to understand that we're an inevitability of the system when water in all its forms are presented. But the purpose of the system is what matters. When we finally get it the Science will change, it will see the future from a galactic perspective and our exploration gene will overtake all others. So what do galacty do? They are hunter gatherers just like us only they seek out the gaseous matter and dispose of it. This is vital and why the 2 property need to stay separated. It's really galaxy evolution and the vacuum space. Peace ️ . Reply @chrisramage5581 8 days ago Sugar ,alcohol, tobacco, fluoride, all advertised enemies of you own beings, Reply 1 reply @sirajchandratalukdar9629 1 day ago (edited) Spirituality has answers to the origin of creation which might seem mystical. Bhagawan Sri Satya Sai Baba of India created materials out of thin arear by mare movement of His hands in public view and brought a dead foreigner to alive declared dead. Mr. John Hislop, parapsychic Mr. Howard Murphet,Dr. Kanu etc have all experienced Baba's divine play which science will find it impossible to explain or instruments to prove such phenomenon. Now the brain neural activity is being explained or discovered as a wave nature from some experiments of anaesthesia n consciousness as quantum in nature. Seems science is confused in all fronts. Reply @tatimoa 7 days ago Red top on then off.light on then off khhh Reply @HellaKwik 8 days ago PhD = paralyzed from the Head Down Reply 1 reply @philliparogers3087 8 days ago I’m lost! Reply @robinwolstenholme6377 9 days ago into africa theory no dispute because of the Dogxim. none of the homonids were us untill us, like the Dogxim Reply @rstevewarmorycom 8 days ago Who is now senile. Reply @chrisgreene2070 9 days ago The silence and lack of response for Mr. Noble is due to the incoherent nature of his arguments. You can't falsify what he is presenting, and he prefers it that way. He's ignoring how science actually works and honeslty rambling about nothing. This is pathetic. Reply @dermotwalshe8577 8 days ago There may be a misunderstanding quoting Darwin or any other researcher but to me the entire problem revolves around the notions implied by the use of the word "fittest" - when it comes to saying survival of the fittest . That process....however random... that provides a result that furthers continued generations or mutations is what I think of as "fittest" . For mice it's multiple generations and litters per year......for herd animals it may be flocking behaviours and / or camouflage mutations ( stripes vs spots ) That information is passed on during reproduction . You have to survive to that age to reproduce . Reply 9 replies @magnetmountain33 6 days ago So what you’re saying is cells get high off viruses Reply @E.Pierro.Artist 8 days ago Scientists hate him. Find out how he came up with a theory using this one simple trick! Reply @user-kd1zq7ti4x 8 hours ago (edited) The absurdity of evolutionary theory is in your face obvious when looking at each individual system in a cell and ascertaining their specified individual function in and of themselves while endeavoring to rationalize why and how they came to be . A chaperonin had no clue what it's function would be in a cell nor how it would physically fold a protein into specific parameters. Oh well let's just throw time at the issue and move on . Total absolute deluti9nal absurdity 1 Reply 2 replies @urielpolak9949 8 days ago Darwinism??? What even is darwinism Reply @johnbolton292 7 days ago Great interview! God loves you. Jesus loves you. On your journey beware of traps and snares. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Don't become lost in the ways of the world. Reply @premakau 7 days ago (edited) After 2,3 decades all these genetic researches would fail miserably..now itself the time is up.. Indians are not pure Indians anymore nor other races also.. a lot genetic mutations have taken place due to fast travel, fast food and fast living.. Not only human genetics even other species bof moving and nonmoving life.. the present brinjal is not in any way the ones in the last decade fact or the same as the ones some 20 years back.. this change of characteristic features applie to all life on this earth . We need not be surprised if we all look alike because of the developments in the AI... The day is not far off you will walk with artificial people not being able to make out the real from the fake human... But the Sanathana Dharma says the Ths Doomsday will take care of this earth...will rectify and start a new world Reply @HelicopterRidesForCommunists 9 days ago They are no different than the heliocentric bishops and priests of the Catholic Church Reply @MarcoSilesio 23 hours ago hmm Reply @brett2themax 7 days ago This guy sounds like a fringe scientist with a lot of holes in his theories. Reply @georgemckendrickbryce9863 7 days ago I'm in love Reply @richardclegg7846 9 days ago Damn she's good Reply @gergely6463 2 days ago Its really not Reply @lonesomealeks4206 8 days ago Hmm. I was hoping for something more.. scientific, you know, and less philosophy.. Reply @Channel-ch8wm 7 days ago (edited) Problem is that the evolution with a purpose is also within the realm of the politics. Different purposes in different settings, there is no universal and unique purpose to all and everything... except maybe the basic laws of the physics that may apply in all settings (if). Downvoted for trying to steer up and bring up the old arguments that repeat over and over again over so many years... If the purpose were an encrypted concept, all of this is a plain bullshit but also not if applied to certain circumstances and maybe the sponsors or a political favor. The only thing I am certain of is that passage in time (or expansion of universe if big-bang were correct) implies the emergence of different intelligences with different purposes. So maybe at some point, there was one type or just a few types of intelligence(s) with one or few purposes, which may not be applicable at the moment anywhere, while that is hardly a representative of any universal. There are many interesting points made in the video, but diluted with a nonsense (to what purpose, I don't know, while it reeks of religion and politics). Reply @kentvanschuyler9520 6 days ago Garage mécanique God protect you from yourselves+++ Reply @ThermaL-ty7bw 6 days ago (edited) it's never going to be the same meaning IN purpose as we mean by it , we know it has a ''purpose'' , we call it determinism , that's the purpose part , that people like this just seem to glans over , as if it's not there ... we've known this for a long time now , evolution is Still the only explanation for all cases the so called ''purpose'' isn't being experienced by a being , so there IS NO ''purpose'' ... but the ''purpose of determinism'' ... an argument always has multiple sides , don't go and stroke your own ego , thinking you Know things , nobody ''knows things'' , we're all just guessing here , don't kid yourselves it's a bit like thinking you have morality , when your own holy book tells you , the only thing You have ... is DECREES , DICTATIONS and COMMENDMENTS , all words associated with ''having a master'' or like we like to call it SLAVERY !!! no morality to be found IN religion , any of them , just ''do this and don't do that cause i don't like it'' , that's SUBJECTIVE morality based on the WHIMS of your respective gods ( who are ALL a delusion of the top shelf btw ) the ONLY people who can even HAVE an OBJECTIVE morality ... are ATHEISTS , when it's actually grounded in a law of nature that permeates the universe , that affects conscious beings we actually KNOW laws exists , like gravity , this ''moral law'' could just be a field in our space-time that affects us and other animals alike ... at least we have evidence that such a law COULD exist , because we know that OTHER laws exist that don't have a strong effect on things , like gravity we do not , how ever , have evidence that a mind outside of space-time can exist , when ALL the evidence we have , points to ''minds'' being an emergent property of the brain ... religious people are just standing there , holding an empty bag , telling Me there's a jesus in there that Just came back from the dead , and i have to be OK with them telling this nonsense to their own children , i'm telling you people , as an Actual member of this here social species , i'm NOT OK WITH THAT !!! 48000+- different denominations from christianity alone , how is That ''created by an all-loving being'' , sounds more like the Other Guy's work to me , but everybody just keeps falling for it ... social species , my ass !! Reply @user-eh7nr9mk6l 5 days ago .. avoiding reductionist view .. by .. 'functions' .. being a purpose .. ?? really besides;: nothing new for the mildly informed listener Reply @jonatasmachado7217 8 days ago Creationism will prevail in the end. I read Charles Darwin and realized that he always assumes evolution but never proves it. Reply @sampreece 6 days ago No shit it’s purposeful. Reply @lettersquash 8 hours ago (edited) 31:25 This is an incorrect interpretation of the "Selfish" Gene idea - Dawkins has gone to great lengths to indicate that cooperation is part of evolutionary strategies, and the selfishness is a colloquial attribution attached to the gene, not people. This has to be the case, since the theory doesn't involve any purpose! "Original sin"? How has he misunderstood this so badly? But Noble has already smuggled in this idea of purposive agency because we assess options and make choices. Currently, some of us are in another kind of awakening to the possibility that the result of our cogitation may depend entirely on prior causes (indeed many would say the logic is incontrovertible) and thus, despite having evolved sophisticated computation and prediction of outcomes, we have no free will. I don't know what Dawkins believes on that issue, but his non-teleological position on evolution fits with it. ...and then it gets worse. It all seems to hinge on the phrase, "the harnessing of stochasticity"...but what is this "harnessing"? How does a system have the ability to choose FREELY between options, rather than simply computing the ONLY POSSIBLE outcome of whatever process its parts are involved in? Kantian magical holism, apparently. The parts are just doing the bidding of "the whole". This is fantastical nonsense. 51:35 "If one starts asking, 'Was the earlist cell purely mechanical?' I don't think it can have been." - What non-mechanical part was there? This is incomprehensible to me other than by invoking some non-physical dimension. ...Oh wait, it's because it's got a membrane, which is what gives it "purpose", because its parts can't dissipate. Wow, Bruce Lipton will love this. I think this is all backwards. Instead of finding "purpose" and non-mechanical abilities in cells, which we ignored because we want to feel special as humans with our purposes, we should be recognising that our purposes are dependent on causes entirely outside our control. There are certainly complex loops of causation, and if the Weisman Barrier or Central Dogma turn out to be simplistic, that just introduces another loop. Dawkins' work is full of eloquent explanations of the mind-boggling loops and apparent purposes, the "designoid" nature of life's processes, and how they aren't in fact purposive - just some people apparently can't see that and keep looking for something that isn't "mechanical" and talking mysteriously about the ability of "processes" that somehow AREN'T "things". Then dismiss this as not dualism. Reply 1 reply @YouTubeH8sMe 3 days ago Life's origin is quantum. Reply 1 reply @andythedishwasher1117 5 days ago While your arguments all seem sound, I'm concerned by the frequency with which you use the term neo-darwinism. It makes it sound like you're setting up a straw man to some degree in the form of an untenable majority position. Granted, what you have defined in this conversation as neo-darwinism does sound like an indefensible scientific position, but your apparently virulent opposition to it betrays a bias that would be easy to target if I were an academic critic. Reply @robertoandreamadonna6025 4 days ago Mmmmmmmm, NO Reply @robertmcclintock8701 8 days ago ( ・_ゝ・) The universe was created in 1976. It is too hot to make a universe at the time of the big bang. It can be created at anytime. God is slow and easy. A human can do a lot with their lifespan. I got the hunk. God got the chunk. Everyone else can have the rest. That is song spirit of '76 by The Alarm. Reply @LLlap 8 days ago I can tell you what's near dead. Reply @KajunMan1971 8 days ago Theist premise 1 (P1): Complex things, such as the universe and living things, require intentional design and creation to exist. Theist premise 2 (P2): [Something/god?] has existed for eternity. Logical Conclusion (C): Therefore, [Something/god?] cannot be a complex and intelligent living thing. This argument follows a logical structure: - P1 establishes a requirement for complex living things (intentional design and creation) - P2 sets a condition for [Something/god?] (eternal existence) - C logically follows that if [Something/god?] meets the condition of eternal existence, it cannot also meet the requirement for complex living things. This is a major problem for theists. Reply 2 replies @Shlooomth 9 days ago This whole idea is so close to the concept of “intelligent design” so I’m having a hard time believing it 2 Reply @EMalX23b 8 days ago Ridiculous, as in: worthy of ridicule! Reply @timothymchugh6232 8 days ago (edited) The main problem I have with the theory of evolution is that they attribute obvious steady progression of design to the eventuality of random chance. There are far too many intelligent adaptations on all organisms for it only to be the result of random mutations that happen to be beneficial and thus increase the chance of survival and replication 1 Reply 1 reply @gekiryudojo 7 days ago You guys are so far behind Reply @user-gr3oo5ux9x 7 days ago Is anyone there really awake? Reply @legendsplayground7017 5 days ago Claim as such is still controversial I guess, there's been many healthy debate going on recently, love your content, keep up the good work Jesus bless Reply 2 replies @SashaMilos-gd4ln 1 hour ago Loads of chips! Really reaching Reply @A_Stereotypical_Heretic 8 days ago Id probably subscribe if you had more content... Showing your face...i mean intellect Reply @stevendavis8636 7 days ago Great video. Good job. Neo-Darwinism is not the answer. Keep looking, make some real progress. Reply @TZMPaquette 6 days ago Lysenko proven right once again Reply 1 reply @E-Kat 8 days ago Why do you play such annoying music at the same time when you're talking to us? Can we have the sound of a barking dogs instead, please? So I'm out. But thank you, that would have been a great discussion. Reply @Dadd00 3 days ago It's not evaluation. It's magic ! Reply @PETERJOHN101 8 days ago The good doctor likes to believe that purpose is a product of evolution, how cute. Reply @thedopaminestop2355 9 days ago No it’s not Reply @duckonquack0o013 7 days ago You have to act as if AI is another lame living being I hate to say it but that’s basically what they’ve done they’ve created another being they can literally talk to you what do you know what’s up it is the future but eventually they’re going to have emotions to If that makes any sense Reply @chrisxavier1848 4 days ago And AI is programmed response. case closed. Reply @chrisxavier1848 4 days ago And AI is programmed response. case closed. Reply @derrickminion9874 7 days ago Evolution doesn't have a goal.. it's natural selection with random mutations that are half deleterious and 49% non deleterious and 1% advantages ... Reply @Chatgptpluginsreview 5 days ago Variables are far from infinite. Youre being far too vague to make any point. Reply @LithicMetals 1 day ago "Science is reconsidering evolution"... no, it's not. Reply @aaronpoage597 9 days ago In patterns hidden, truths reside, From ancient wisdoms, none can hide, In numbers pure and shapes divine, We trace the cosmic grand design. From sacred sites to stellar dance, In every turn, we find a chance, To glimpse the order, feel the beat, Of universal laws discreet. The pyramids, the stars above, Resonate with a primal love, Their ratios and rhythms tell, Of secrets known to those who dwell. In music’s chord and nature’s form, In fractal paths where chaos swarms, We see the threads that bind and weave, A tapestry we scarce believe. As planets move and seasons change, Their patterns, though they may seem strange, Are whispers of a truth profound, In every beat, in every sound. We stand upon the brink, it’s clear, A new horizon drawing near, Where ancient truths and science blend, And human hearts anew ascend. So let us seek, let us explore, These cosmic truths forevermore, In harmony, with open eyes, We’ll journey forth and realize. Reply 2 replies @justincantrell2082 2 days ago Something is a miss here…..????? I am out. BS!!!!!! Reply @samrowbotham8914 9 days ago I see evolution in transport, chess, sport, warfare, computer programming I do not see it in life. There is no evidence that we all emerged from some ape type ancestor, a lion will always be a lion and a man will always be a man. Darwinian evolution inside its original scope of explanation require reproducing organisms where did they come from? How do you get from simple organic molecueles to simple cells that possess a whole host of machinerey designed for reporoduction and cellular function? Grant us one small miracle and we will explain the rest by imagining it and then arguing for it philosophically anyone who does not agree will be mocked and if they are part of the science community branded heretics and sent to Coventry. Reply 1 reply @julesgosnell9791 3 days ago (edited) I buy the fact that there’s information in the ovum that’s not in the DNA, I buy into Epigenetics, I’m struggling with this whole argument about “wholeness” and “purpose” - I think these are just a matter of perspective. An eye may appear to have an obvious purpose within the context of its owner, but that purpose just like that organ is the accumulation of incremental change over billions of years. When it was just a patch of light sensitive cells at one end of a flatworm it’s purpose wasn’t to be an eye but perhaps just to detect the difference between light and dark and as it structure has evolved so has its use and by extension its “purpose”. It wasn’t in someway for-ordained to become an eye. Likewise “wholeness” is just an abstraction for a functioning system - if we take away a bit and stops functioning then we know it was whole and now it is not. If a system is not functioning it will leave the evolutionary race therefore by definition everything that is in the race is whole and furthermore will have backup systems at every level that strive to maintain that wholeness. Reply 6 replies @coolumesque 9 days ago (edited) God has always made me watch as He creates universes from plasma in His ocean that is teeming with life. And life from God's ocean passes through into our oceans & adapts to the living conditions here. God came here again today & taught me more things I will not go into just now. But basically life came from life & that life was the life in God's ocean that our universe is suspended in. I have read countless accounts of God taking people into His ocean to show them that our world is 100% beneath the waters of God's ocean. Far ancient religious art also shows this concept & yet new age religions such as genesis say that God created the universe in His ocean & commanded that birds & life in all its forms come forth from the ocean. This led people to imagine that God created life magically in our oceans, when the far more ancient religions explained that life came through from God's ocean into ours because our oceans & firmament are suspended in God's life-filled ocean. It's an absolute waste of time writing this of course because you have to see it to believe it. Have a great day Reply @elfootman 8 days ago He sounds sketchy Reply @mysteryneophyte 5 days ago Duh Reply @JamesMaynardMoreland 6 days ago lets all evolve to breathe nicotine together Reply @dinomiles7999 7 days ago Darwin took a minute splice of the ALL . . IT WAS A FLAWED STUDY ! ( EGO ). Reply @julianholman7379 8 days ago 'The Selfish Gene' is evolution for Thatcher-ites Reply @dwqdwwdwqdqwd2950 9 days ago The theory doesn't answer to Berlinski's obvious objection, namely that it is mathematically impossible. Also, it does not explain the cause for the hard problem, that is, consciousness, yet it absolutely should since it claims to be the cause for the same. Clearly, we have a theory faced with not one but two insurmountable objectional facts and such theory is a failed theory. Please, stop entertaining this naive theory! Reply @johnwatts8346 8 days ago (edited) it may be a bit petty and so forth, but i just cant stand dawkins, he has disappeared up his own... and i would take a measure of joy if it turns out hes wrong about everything even in his chosen field of evolution, coz hes sure as s wrong everything else. Reply @wesleypatterson2883 4 days ago Do you ever watch,Nobel commrtte? Reply 3 replies @IB4UUB4ME 5 days ago Every house has a maker. The one who made everything is Jehovah. Reply 1 reply @peterwilson7532 5 days ago Old man seeks solace before he dies, same old tale. Unlike his famous work, there is no science here. Irrelevant philosophy. Reply @Trollsagan69420 9 days ago Evolution most definitely isn’t purposeful. There’s far too many inefficient complex systems to allow for that hypothesis to make any sense. 2 Reply @LazyUggugg 1 day ago I ain’t watching all this yapping Reply @roblake602 9 days ago Andrea: Darwin was correct. He just couldn't describe the mechanism. The explosion of species in the Cambrian Era was Eukaryotic organisms in combination. That still applies. Humans and great apes share around 99% the same DNA. The difference is in the complexity of the microbiome. Apes have dozens, Humans have 100's of different bacterial species, each doing work for the larger organism. That's evolution! 1 Reply @DanLyndon 8 days ago (edited) Clickbait title. Here's the reality: Noble doesn't understand the Modern Synthesis or is deliberately creating straw-men to attack. His ideas are unfalsifiable and don't actually add anything. Reply @trismegistus3461 7 days ago Clickbait. No, science is not reconsidering evolution, it's further elaborating it. This is content is pure pseudoscience. Reply @FREEMANDan-en5ov 5 days ago (edited) THIS WHY PSYCHEDELICS EXIST??? = Reply @chrisxavier1848 4 days ago LOL no we don't know that evolution brings about life. Yeah just blithely "skip it" Reply @TheSkullThatTalks 6 days ago Finally Reply 1 reply @anonymoushawk962 4 days ago 1:36 when people who argue ideas beneficial to religious ideology say “by making an assumption that could not be proved”… this is directed toward people who don’t believe in evolution to begin with (hardcore religious people). Someone who believes in evolution would never falter their belief in evolution with this information. Not even the slightest reconsideration. Causality and time is a thing. Humans can see evolution happen experimentally in a lab. This is all conjecture and biased speculation. This is all just a stretch. He says smart things but gets confused on something so trivial. It’s not THAT deep. Physics… HES IGNORING THAT YOU CAN LITERALLY CHANGE THE CHARACTERISTICS OF A POPULATION IN A LAB BY CONTROLLING THE ENVIRONMENT. how can one still speculate this… most of y’all watch this just to give some sort of validation for your unrealistic assumption about reality. I can’t bare finishing this video. Waste of time. 8:50 THIS IS HOW IT STARTED AND IT EVOLVED. Spontaneous formation of complex life as it is today is possible thermodynamically but VERY VERY VERY VERY UNLIKELY. ITS JUST AS POSSIBLE FOR A CUPCAKE TO FORM SPONTANEOUSLY. This guy should’ve studied physics at least to an undergrad level. Thermodynamics and statistical mechanics with the knowledge of biology and chemistry would make things so clear. This is triggering me just as much as flat earthers do. Except this guy probably sounds more intelligent going into specifics that don’t incite speculation one bit. Reply @PasqualeRaso1975 3 days ago The Universe body is a fluctuating quantum field a plasma biomass that generated consciously by its very nature from a state of pitch black darkness when building up a charge via capacitance drawing a uniform Cometary Lighbolt into its depths where there appeared a myriad of stars of even charge distribution as it traversed traveling the path of least resistance with no interference pattern where it twinkled into that morphed instantaneously into a Green Plasma Accretion Disc abiding inside thereof as an upright Naga taking its most ideal form warping transmuting into our present Globular Filamentary Galactic Cluster retracting itself life being hardy under the heavy entropy the wear and tear of working towards its destiny against all resistance ready to devour its enemies being the larger dragon these being the conditions that had to be faced keeping to the biorhythm of its evolutionary path on a cosmic scale yet to complete the first phase of its cycle the Cometary Lightbolt Skotophotomorphogenesis, so basically the Universe manifested into its most ideal form to do the task required weaving itself into a cocoon with which was available of itself being exotically dynamic by its very nature to progenerate building itself a nest the Earth to do so! Reply @scottyrose9106 7 days ago You know the number of cuts and edits she made, this guy probably believes the exact opposite of what she's making him out to say. 1 Reply @jyrkiseppala3385 9 days ago God made one male from dirt and after that stole one rib in the night - woman. Reply @tonytiger2914 9 days ago Purpose is inherent Reply @DheerajYadav-tx7mk 6 days ago people love philosophy that supports existence of God 1 Reply 1 reply @lilbear19601 7 days ago BS Reply @eirecoleen 8 days ago (edited) Evolution is it's own religion. Believers will grasp @ any straw to hold up that theory, come hell or high water The Bible makes sense, its historic/earth science/archeologically-accurate- Get right w/Jesus Christ, the only Savior of our eternal souls- Reply @glenliesegang233 9 days ago Michael Levin who has studied the emergence of multicellular organisms from a single ovum supports the idea that cells posess a basic level of sentience and agency. Atoms behave responsively to their environment by changing their internal states. Aliveness and a sensitivity to environment is so different from random processes and inert clumps of matter. Digital (base 64) encoding of information plus fantastically complex nanomachines and structures which interact with it each other, and the environment via non-digital information, is the essential difference between life and non-life on Earth. The jump from inert matter and molecules to digitally specified assembly and processing of smaller molecules is a hurdle no random process can overcome. Why? Because random sequences of symbols, by definition, contain no information, and no information bearing sequence arises from random assembly. Crystals have order, but do not contain information. Reply @Chatgptpluginsreview 5 days ago I dont think this guy understands that this is where creativity is, in water etc but once conciousness, intellignce, energy (call it as you may)harnesses any manifestations of itself, to free itself from the confines of time, space, we then come full circle. Meaning once we can utilize a mere morsel of any visible or non-visible matter, to the point we access a constant stream of energy carrying all that we have ever discovered, we made it. Thats the end goal, two extremes. Reply @TheReaverOfDarkness 8 days ago Evolution being purposeful is not a new concept. People just don't like it. Reply 11 replies @JohnQPublic345 5 days ago God is the greatest creator 1 Reply 1 reply @thomasschodt7691 2 days ago LOL Just because evolution is not intuitive to you does not make it any less true... Reply @studiojutsu 4 days ago You all lost me at "genes are the cause of heart disease" no, food is the cause of heart disease and cardiovascular disease, back to occams razor, this simplest explanation. Reply 1 reply @mygad 9 days ago Clickbait title. Blocking. 1 Reply @niarbasdeenohw 4 days ago Really interesting... Of course, this isn't the 1st time I've listened to / heard this... I think it fits better than "we came from apes"... Reply @phiality9070 1 day ago No dumas, no one is reconsidering anything. Reply @Puffalupagus360 8 days ago Ahhh the eternal effort to float Lamarckian evolution as the method by which evolution actually works which has been proven false numerous times. 3rd way evolutionist love it but then again flat earthers love Samuel Rowbotham. Being liked ≠ being correct. Reply @jbtownsend9535 3 days ago This sounds a little bit like the old “atheism is a just as dogmatic as religion so you’re a hypocrite” chestnut. Reply @scicutella 7 days ago We were designed by God. The Catholic God. Reply 3 replies @susiefairfield7218 9 days ago "Animals are something invented by plants to move seeds around. An extremely yang solution to a peculiar problem which they faced.” -Terence McKenna Reply @chrisxavier1848 4 days ago Nothing harnesses anything without a goal or purpose; purpose shows knowledge-based decision, all that can only come from a conscious rational being. Reply 1 reply @ca7582 8 days ago This channel is fuckin A Reply @mulg1 4 days ago (edited) You folks sound like you're are grasping for straws. You just cant bake your cake and eat it. Purpose without a designer? If your scientific investigations indicate a designer/creator then you should accept it and stop trying to come up with some excuse of an explanation. You have arrived at the limit of your Science. Reply 1 reply @Achrononmaster 5 days ago @49:00 this is not good. You are co-opting the words "intelligent" and "cognition" so that even an unconscious Ai bot would have those attributes (by your warped definitions). It is unhelpful and obscurantist. What cells and proto-organisms "have" is algorithmic complexity, which only means they can "solve" hard tasks --- as pure input-output black boxes. There is no need to ascribe intent and purpose, which are, in ordinary language for us dumb plebs, always connotations of subjective mental qualia. So stop co-opting our common language you nerds! There is zero evidence cells and other systems that solve complex tasks have subjective mental qualia. In fact the ascription is of zero use in science. As far as we know only humans posses subjective mental qualia. It might not be like anything to be a bat. We just don't know. Without a theory of subjective qualia there is nothing to say on the matter, as Wittgenstein wisely observed, on such matters it is better to remain silent. Reply @Nebukanezzer 9 days ago Evolution selects for all possible properties, including capacity to evolve efficiently. This is why we have portions of our genome that are highly conserved. We have evolved not to mess with those pieces, because it will waste an attempted pregnancy. This isn't "intelligence", it's not "throwing out natural selection". It's efficient use of resources and adapting to a world with many varied climates that cycles in and out of ice ages. Reply @SMMore-bf4yi 9 days ago Why can’t evolution have been created …?like when we see the long neck turtles with stretched neck from reaching up & offspring same, they evolved long neck for survival… the process must have been allowed or they wouldn’t have survived… or maybe monkeys stretched hands & thumbs, handy hands ? Don’t know bout selfish , many ppl don’t understand they selfish 1 Reply @user-ij7ws1oc9z 8 days ago The human ego is the constraint that consciousness is “tied to”. Evolution’s purpose is to grow our consciousness around our ego layer, and connect us back with our unconscious. Reply @chyfields 9 days ago My perception is that all lifeforms are tools of the Creator, deliberately designed with purpose. The teeniest of tools in the holistic toolbox are precision tools. Reply @blackthai5023 9 days ago How traumatic for the scientific community they need to evolve.& reconsidering the science they buy into Reply 1 reply @HelicopterRidesForCommunists 9 days ago If Dennis has not already met up with Jordan Peterson that needs to happen Reply @TheWadetube 1 day ago The more scientists learn about biology and life the more complex it gets and becomes a better proof of intelligent design. In ten years it will be even MORE complex. Scientists keep speaking of Evolution as a person with purpose and a good design far above the abilities of all the scientists on earth combined. Praise the mud puddle god of the evolutionist. Reply @patrickday4206 9 days ago (edited) We have also proven that if humans are given tough food to chew as children their teeth are better with bigger jaws. Not determined solely by genetics Reply @bencheevers6693 6 days ago This is so dumb and clickbait, trying to conflate environment with conscious purpose, none of these 'issues' or this misunderstanding of chemistry and protein synthesis or the misunderstanding of polygenic risk scores pose any problems to our understanding of evolution. Of what use is this entire discussion, article or video, it's a mistatement of some data, a wuwu novel hypothesis for that conveyed in an entirely gobblygook way. The reason there no thesis or introduction to this video and why I needed to watch through 30 minutes and read the article to understand what you were trying to say is because you're saying a lot of nonsense. There is no objective purpose anywhere there's no shift happening or any contrary facts to contend with. I'm disappointed I got click baited by this, it's fairly garbage, usually even with clickbait like this there is something novel to contend with and that's what everybody that clicks is interested in hearing and there's nothing here. Reply @headsails 8 days ago One thing is for certain. Darwin is dead. Reply @GiganticMythicalSpaceFishWhale 4 days ago It is pùrposèfùl, you just don't want to àdmìt God èxist. Reply 2 replies @valerieprice1745 8 days ago Origin of life research has never actually produced any results at all. They keep suggesting that scientists have succeeded in creating building blocks of life in laboratory experiments, but nothing could be further from the truth. Origin of life researchers publish many bogus papers, because their failures have called into question the wisdom of continuing to pour millions of taxpayer dollars into this fruitless line of research. The entire field would have to find new positions and new subjects of study, which would mean that many of them would literally be out of a job. The motivation for their shameless fraud is obvious. The more they study the cell, the more levels of complexity they discover. Spontaneous generation of life has been shown to be impossible by the statistical improbability, and because the supposed conditions required for spontaneous generation would actually destroy any compounds necessary for life as soon as they formed. They need to go back to the drawing board in trying to figure out how life began. Kicking the problem into outer space doesn't answer the question. If life began in outer space, how did life begin in outer space? Reply @yeshuaisjoshua 9 days ago I love how these people make YouTube videos instead of writing scientific papers that can be peer reviewed. Reply @coolorphans 9 days ago Pseudoscience Reply @enzolescure5833 3 days ago Sorry, I just watched the first minute of the video and I have to say it right away. It is supposed to be about evolution. Why are you talking about the human heart? Why is the music so dramatic? Why is Denis Noble angering his peers, if not because he refuses to admit that he's wrong? This introduction sounds like a conspiracy theory, that lists a bunch of irrelevant information to build up a character. Reply @djayjp 9 days ago No, Theists are wrong because it's unjustified to hold such beliefs as being true. 1 Reply @jamm_affinity 7 days ago I don’t understand why it’s so difficult for people to accept that life can have purpose without the traditional belief in a God. Just goes to show when you already have a forgone conclusion, you will continue to find evidence for that conclusion rather than things that challenge it. Reply 3 replies @sreed7637 7 days ago James Webb telescope has pretty much destroyed evolutionism! At least for anyone who knows how to research. Reply 1 reply @williamlouie569 9 days ago Randomness cannot explain evolution! Look like it's impossible life evolved by meek chances! Reply @shockcat5988 8 days ago This blasphemer against science (scientism) must be cast out of the church. We evolved from a random chemical reaction with crystals and lightning. lol Reply 1 reply @gameros2012 4 days ago Thank you Lysenko for being 100% right every single time and suffering the consequences for being absolutely correct. Geneticists will never forgive Lysenko for being supported by comrade Stalin and the bravest supreme soviet elects to have ever been born against petty bourgeois geneticists with "big ideas" from the imperial capital. Long live proletarian sciences and materialism. Remember we will always be correct. Every. Single. Time. Reply 6 replies @Azrael__ 9 days ago Okay, boomer. Reply @thedude9014 6 days ago Reply @FatherGapon-gw6yo 6 days ago Evolution lol Reply @RotatingLocomotive 7 days ago Theferefore God exists Reply @jeffpricefamily3905 9 days ago This is why abortion needs to be abolished , we are unique , it is not the woman's body , the DNA is unique . Reply @jamesanonymous2343 4 days ago OH NO !!!! NOT THIS OLD S.O.B. AGAIN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Reply @PravdaSeed 9 days ago new️old️ Darwin copy 100% from magnificent Hinduism check it out please 5.000 Years old Matrix. Reply @JasonWorks-rf1yt 4 days ago The geezer is lying. Video is a joke. Reply @sup7530 8 days ago Jesus will always love and accept you, just accept that you're saved by faith in God's grace through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Reply @libs-Suk-Balz 1 day ago Why are you teaching people to be stupid? Reply