This is how intelligent, knowledgeable and men of integrity debate.

A dignified debate about the relationship between the gene and the organism. No shouting just mutual respect.

He’s 86 and perfectly recalled lines out of a book published in 1946. That’s amazing I’m itself. I desperately hope I’m as lively and articulate at age 86 as Dennis.

I loved how youthful and useful Sir Denis looked. In stark contrast, Sir Richard was visibly and audibly disturbed to what Sir Denis was saying. This to me, was quite surprising, given how Sir Richard always boasts about how science loves asking questions and challenging truths. His truth was challenged and he didn’t act quite like a scientist.

KZfaq at its best. So educational, so inspirational, so exemplary. A beautiful discussion between two beautiful minds.

This is what I like about the science. There is open debate and the opportunity to discuss ideas. If you are wrong, you are wrong and we move on with a better understanding of the world. Unlike many religious people, who recoil in horror at any hint of non-compliance with their dogmatic, often objectively wrong claims. Time will tell who is right, when more evidence is gathered and analysed.

As most people in the comments are evidently ignorant of evolutionary biology, I will explain the nature of this debate briefly: The debate between Dawkins and Noble is a complex one, where neither is "getting schooled" by the other. What a nonsensical thing to suggest. They are both highly influential biologists with different views on how evolution works. Dawkins represents the more popular and dominant idea of modern synthesis, which combines Darwin's theory of natural selection with Mendel's theory of genetics. He believes that genes are the units of inheritance and evolution, and that natural selection is the only mechanism that can explain adaptive complexity. He rejects the idea of Lamarckian inheritance, which is the idea that organisms can pass on traits that they acquired during their lifetime to their offspring. Noble proposes the idea of Lamarckian inheritance as another of many factors that influence evolution. He argues that there are multiple mechanisms of inheritance and evolution, and that some of them involve feedback loops between the genome, the organism, and the environment. He also rejects the idea of gene-centric causation and proposes the principle of Biological Relativity, which states that there is no privileged level of causation in biology. Most biologists agree with Dawkins, as modern synthesis is still the dominant theory in biology. However, the idea of Lamarckian inheritance is on the rise slowly, due to some recent discoveries in the field of epigenetics. Some researchers have suggested that epigenetic changes can be inherited across generations and affect evolution. Dawkins rejects that idea. Some examples of other biologists who criticize Lamarckian inheritance and agree with Dawkins are Jerry Coyne, W. Ford Doolittle, and Eugene Koonin. Some examples of biologists who support Lamarckian inheritance are Eva Jablonka, Marion Lamb, and Michael Skinner. And then there are also some biologists who are "in the middle", like E.O. Wilson who accepts epigenetic inheritance but does not buy into Lamarckian inheritance playing a big factor in evolution. Now, please, keep the Dawkins- and/or Noble-bashing to yourself. I'm betting that none of you commenting this nonsense are actually biologists, let alone would survive a biological debate with either of the two gentlemen.

I can't believe a man in his mid 90s is still that sharp !

Wonderful and thought-provoking conversation! I'm just glad they're still around to have these amazing debates 😁

Brilliant conversation. Thank you.

I don't see anyone schooling anyone here. Just two friends who respect and admire eachother having a discussion. And how brilliant it is that we can witness great minds talking about big ideas. Thanks for sharing.

Respect to Dawkins for doing this… Dawkins has long been passed by in this field and it showed.

thanks you for uploading the whole thing, this definitly needs to be out there without a paywall

Dawkins has said publicly that he dislikes having moderators. I think this lady would probably be an exception. Well done.

It’s just sooo wonderful to listen the arguments between 2 geniuses in science. I only hope that there will be the same talk between 2 different religion as calm and human as this.

Thx for uploading this 👍🏾

"...and that is how it's done. Fabulous!" Exactly. Thank you!

These are two very smart and wise men who have studied their subjects for decades! Wow!! fascinating and educational!! Hope this inspires the students!! Respect!!

It is quite impossible to readily jump to conclusions that the microbiological or the embriological approach to determining the types of genome and the organism are the carrying agents in the Evolutionary process...Kudos to Mr Dawkins for giving us the insight in the gaps in the approach of Mr Dennis's conclusions in Evolutionary process...Fantastic discourse...Unforgettable

What can I say, Denis Noble you are a brilliant Biologist, for a man of 86 years you have an incredible capacity to recall so much relevant information with great accuracy. I could listen to this man for hours. Dawkins on the other hand is a different kettle of fish. No matter how many times he contradicted Noble he was quickly put in his place. All in all It was most entertaining and edifying to say the least.

I just discovered Noble and I love him

"...which is a wonderful book except that it's wrong." Dawkins has such a great way of making people like him through his confidence.

Brilliant discussion… Lovely debate…..

Massively fascinating!

Oh, thanks for uploading this!

Incredible debate by 2 real titans of evolution and science a privilege to watch, hope people pick up on Kinesin protein's walking on microtubule and their function which really is the genesis of biology, thanks TiMMoTEuS for a excellent upload.

Finally this is coming to light.

Dennis speaks the language of real science and Richard tries to defend something that has many errors.

Scroll down for people not discussing the issue.

The ending was beautiful😂😁

Mayr rejected the idea of a gene-centered view of evolution and starkly but politely criticised Richard Dawkins's ideas: The funny thing is if in England, you ask a man in the street who the greatest living Darwinian is, he will say Richard Dawkins. And indeed, Dawkins has done a marvelous job of popularizing Darwinism. But Dawkins' basic theory of the gene being the object of evolution is totally non-Darwinian. I would not call him the greatest Darwinian. - Ernst Mayr, Mayr insisted that the entire genome should be considered as the target of selection, rather than individual genes: The idea that a few people have about the gene being the target of selection is completely impractical; a gene is never visible to natural selection, and in the genotype, it is always in the context with other genes, and the interaction with those other genes make a particular gene either more favorable or less favorable. In fact, Dobzhansky, for instance, worked quite a bit on so-called lethal chromosomes which are highly successful in one combination, and lethal in another. Therefore people like Dawkins in England who still think the gene is the target of selection are evidently wrong. In the 30s and 40s, it was widely accepted that genes were the target of selection, because that was the only way they could be made accessible to mathematics, but now we know that it is really the whole genotype of the individual, not the gene. Except for that slight revision, the basic Darwinian theory hasn't changed in the last 50 years. - Ernst Mayr, 2001

The part cannot hold the whole, hence the holistic approach makes more sense. The parts have their merits of course, but the whole defines a purposeful system - the essence of existence. Still a long way to explore - eg. the effects of non physical on the physical itself expands the boundaries of a holistic system. Stimulating discussion, and yes civil & eloquent too 😊

The very best of science! Wow! When Richard asks Denis to sign his book is unbelievable! Imagine two religious people having this kind of debate! Denis is great, but he seems a bit confused about the conclusions he draws from certain evidence or study!

this is a very important distinction

Someone correct me if im wrong here: Essentially everything Noble points out here, can be eventually reduced down to "Well what mechanism in the body makes it turn on and off different functions in genes? The rest of the genes". So its just genes all the way down, which still falls completely in line with the idea of "the selfish gene".

I'm not a biologist, so I won't pretend to have an opinion on all of this. But I will say that I didn't expect such an entertaining debate on this topic!

The debate ended when it really started to get interesting.

10:00 Fascinating, but nuts. Unfortunately, I need to think about this in terms of Judea Pearl, and that's never a quick path to a hot take, so my more specific comment will have to wait.

Wow, such an amazing exchange. This is the British way.

Two veteran heavyweights very carefully slugging it out in the ring. Didn't understand much of that but the conclusion brought together the conflicting themes beautifully. I think Noble was right to be broad minded and I think Dawkins was right to be cautious

The idea has entered my head and now it won't leave. Denis Noble is Dawkins' real-life Ogden Wernstrom. 😂

Incredible to think that human beings have reached the point of scientific advancement to be able to write down with pen and paper the very code that makes us, us.

So im half way through the video, and if i understand the discussion well then basically a combination of Dennis and Richard ideas would mean that theres an extra layer on top of natural selection as described by Darwin the layer is that earlier organisms themselves shape the direction in which evolution will happen, not just the environment or chance. Therefore one might say that if say lizards never appeared in the evolutionary tree (but a closely similar organism did nevertheless) then the remaining branches of that tree would be significantly different than if they did appear. Therefore, thanks to the fish for all the decisions it took we came about. Extrapolating more, this shows how intricately tied life is to the environment, and if life was to appear on another planet, it will have to have most of the features adapted to that planet, i say most because the rest could be an adaptation to the universe at large.

not sure what to make of this by the end. interested to read opinions of biologists watching this. do recent findings raise doubts about a gene's eye view or from an evolutionary perspective these new mechanisms still wouldn't be significant?

Wow! Lammark is back!! To some extent

The discussion is quite technical and based on huge amount of informations and data but it can be summarized in egg-chicken cycle or gene-organism and who is affecting who?

Dawkins may worry that he has a lot to loose. But his contribution is recognised despite biology inevitably moving on.

This talk might be a historical one.

it is a good sign when the person A summarizes the position of the person B and the person B is nodding enthusiastically.

What is the name of Denis´s colleague mentioned in 25th minute? Please...

Not only Lamarck but Lyssenko is back😢

It seemed to me that this was a discussion between two people who were both "correct", The genes run the evolution game and the cells, gemules, tubules etc take care of the daily problems. - but I am only a metallurgist (retired). I enjoyed and followed the whole discussion.

A wonderful scientific debate cut short by the blind timekeepers.

So many deeply stupid comments.

The war of words on genes vs organisms. Both giants are not trying to win the arguments but trying to learn what was missing in their understanding. The same goes for those listening to them as what matters at the end is learning not competing in ego. I think Richard Dawkins makes more sense to the information postulated, while the other side seems to be not sufficient in convincing otherwise. Though the claim is fascinating, let's say which way the wind blows in the future. I can't imply that RD is always right and can't be wrong in his research as this is the beauty of science that it gets changed whence the information surpasses the previous one. Genes are the building blocks. I 'The Selfish Gene', read thrice, even though I am not a science student, it's written in such an effortless language, I was able to grasp the information: genes are everything and our bodies are their hosts. Our children are then new hosts, and this is how we live for good. Saying that organisms are the driving force for the genes that later bring changes to the whole scenario, which needs a lot of elaboration with evidence and proof. To sum up, genes and organisms work in a system to cause what they are supposed to. Thank you for reading.

"It's getting hot in here", says one fruit fly to the other... 😁👍

In this occasion Dawkins was outsmarted by Noble, especially in respect to diffulties in establishing well-defined connections between genes and phenotypes, in most cases, and to recent evidence of possible germline genetic modifications which could rehabilitate Lamarck ideas. The only thing which - I think - can be a true mistake by Noble is the use of the phenomenon of sexual selection to support Lamarckism.

I feel that mystery of mitochondria are far more important than DNA.

That’s how science was done.

isnt it funny that darwin also studied under lamarck

Fortunately, Richard was there, otherwise, he might not have been able to talk very much. I do like the conversation and the idea that utility plays such an important role. I just wish Dawkins could speak a little more because I think he of course has refutations were it not for his good manners.

“the more you know, the more you know you don’t know” - Aristotle “as for me, all I know is that I know nothing” - Socrates Both discovered the gaps they have and it gives them opportunity to roll up their sleeves and co-create sustainable solutions for human development 🇿🇦

I’m not sure this went anywhere. But it’s more likely that I wasn’t able to keep up

very scientific "chicken or egg" debate.

Paul Whitehouse and Harry Enfield.

The reason why this debate was so civilized, is simply that the two gentlemen know what they are talking about. A debate usually turns "uncivilized" is that one, or both, don't really know what they are talking about. Actually, Dawkins for instance, have been engaged in uncivilized debates.

noble knows his stuff, dawkins seems a bit outdated.

KZfaq commenters think Nobel is somehow more convincing must be completely ignorant of basic DNA biochemistry... What Nobel said are true, but I find them hardly convincing towards his argument for the debate.

Even for KZfaq, these commenters are nuts

Facts ( with in science) always change with better experiments and new data. The reason people adapt them late is, the new data conflicts with thier world view ,so they continue to hold on the old one( Neodarwinian). N.B I meant if its only true that we have a new data that physiology has that much effect.

Lamarkianism.. No this was disproved a long time ago as a fundamental long term evolutionary mechanism!

Who had to leave??

Mixing different races produce beautiful and healthy, long living people. The bigger the gene pool, the better the outcome. No racial or ethnic distinction is the way to go. We, in the tiny Netherlands, are the prove of that.

Interesting topic in which both speakers are correct. The DNA codes for RNA and proteins that help it to multiply and survive intact while there are over 30 biochemical processes that feed back on DNA to control gene expression and often silence it. Dawkins is most correct because the smallest living thing on Earth is the Cadang Cadang coconut viroid at 246-7 RNA nucleotides long. All it does is use the coconut cell's substrates and molecular machines to reproduce itself by a templating mechanism and does not code for anything but itself. Naked in the environment it could potentially reproduce on volcanic glass as a catalyst by using nucleotides broken down off its neighbour viroids or other detritus.

Denis is saying the passing of the germ line is not certain but optional depending on the circumstances. This is inline with observable phenomenon in our lives.

The host.🤖💯💯💯

Two of the greatest minds of our time, proud to be British, If Dawkins was Catholic he would be a Nobel, Denis Noble not as well known but equally splendid.

What Mr. Nobels says doesn't contradict the main point of Dawkins selfish-gene-theorie. Nobel is trying to be facetious by referring to Lamarck. Amazing gesture by Dawkins at the end.

This discussion needs a bit of Michael Levin 😉

I guess I don't know enough about the matters discussed here, but I'm having a really hard time following Noble's arguments. He says several times that Dawkins is right with with his theories, up to a point, but then never clearly spells out about what he thinks Dawkins is wrong or what's missing. Who can help me to understand?

Actually they are both right, in a way, but they didn't realised that. DNA designs the cell, and it designs it in a way so that it can change it's coding according to the outside environment. So the change in DNA can occur even before it transfers to next generations.

Dennis was Richard's examiner!

Denis Noble is 86 years old.

24:20

👍

'There is more evidence for devolution than for evolution' - Derek Prince, King's College Cambridge. 'There is not the creative spark needed for me to believe in evolution' - John Lennox, Oxford University.

5:30

❤

2:07 lol😂

Now growing obsolete (but at least started the ball rolling).

The debate could have also happened without the host 😅

Dawkins's simplistic dogma about the gene being the driving force behind evolution is dying. And he knows it. He is increasingly desperate. Dawkins has explained that his only regret about eventually dying is to miss out on the development of science and technology. He should perhaps be careful what he wishs for...

Are tubulines connected with luekemia because calcium is inactivated because of a lack of them proteins? and how can a non living organism like a plant be a function without genes acting. A cabbage can't make a decision other than where to put its roots and the roots can't decide where the need for a gene is required without a memory. Unless it all happens in an instant through tubules and calcium. Interesting and makes me question what life actually is.

This sounded like the Chicken and egg conundrum. Which is using the other as a tool or vehicle? Gen or the organism? Fascinating debate.

I have some trouble with understanding how "lamarck is back" by what Noble said. Seems Dawkins had too. Am i missing something or did he not explain it well enough?

so if i understood this correctly what was said in the video was: denis: "dna changes during a human lifetime beneficially to its environment and these changes get passed on" richard: "not on this planet, maybe on other planets" i personally would just ask: "okay which changes get passed on and at what intensity" i mean, we shouldn't even have to argue at this and just look at the evidence. we can just check our DNA at 3 years old and then another time at 50 years old and see if the DNA somehow changed beneficially to its environment over time. it will either change beneficially, change randomly or won't change at all. so lets do some tests and look at the results and we have our answers no need to argue if we can literally just look at the results after doing these tests

Ad Hominem attacks are ignorant; surprised to see some here. When an expert in one field tries to school the experts in a related but different field, it doesn't go well. Prof. Noble might say that it is no "accident" that he became a physiologist and not an evolutionary biologist. His problem may be a world view that cannot accept true randomness in the Universe.

Dawkins has to keep defending his arguments by saying as evolutionist and long run meaning which is telling himself that he is guess elephant by touching its leg only with blinded eyes

Very interesting, as far as I could understand . But could you call your book ' The selfish gene' as if it has some kind of personality?

This was between a teacher and student