Science Is Reconsidering Evolution

Richard Dawkins' Selfish Gene faces a formidable challenge as biophysicist Denis Noble makes a case for evolution driven by purpose, intention and a collective intelligence of organisms.

For more information and research discussed in the video and article :

Subtitles [CC] have been proofread by a human :)
Interview edited for time. Integrity of expert commentary respected and preserved.
___________________

_________________

Variable minds is where I post interviews with sources, science explainers and in-progress investigative science reporting. These videos are sort of where podcasts meet documentaries, or podumentaries.

This channel intersects science, tech, art, and creativity. I talk to experts and investigate cognitive systems in humans, nonhumans, and AI, the hard problem of consciousness, and movements to hybridize with technology: transhumanism and the extended mind thesis (EMT).

I also cover research on the artistic mind, unique artistic expression, and the challenges to intelligent and creative anthropocentrism in the wake of generative art, large language models, novel synthetic organisms and exponential technology. At the core of this channel is a commitment to continual learning, holistic thinking (intelligent holism) and the joy of lifelong learning.

[ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

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.

[kevinsmith-qjbz]

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.

[andrewbreding]

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

[Samsara_is_dukkha]

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.

[DXYSU]

Noble's definition of "purpose" when conscious, is the closest description of free will I've seen from any scientist.

[Gaurav-pqug]

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.

[dravonwalker]

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!

[deadman]

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.

[georgemonsanto]

17 minutes into the video: Dr. Noble is creating another milestone of accolade. To put his idea in one complete sentence: a particular human genome is programmable thus may evolve because of a set of factors like environment, breeding, habits, nutrition to name a few. I made this comment to help me remember this concept. A remarkable feat indeed. Thank you.
P.S. It was like they're saying: we all have the same common genes yet some don't get sick that that particular brings. And what's crazy is that some people have the perfect set of healthy genes yet suffer the same disease or illness.

[Kormac]

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.

[lethalwolf]

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!

[anywallsocket]

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.

[JohnBurman-ll]

Dennis is highly intelligent...which is very rare. This shows in his openness and humility...characteristics not found in the big talkers with huge egos.

[appl]

Definitely shows how much of our current knowledge is hampered by popularity rather than facts

[johnunderwood]

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!

[JasperCarrot-rptb]

What a great guy, very clever but open minded and accessible.

[stopthethreat]

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries”.
Robert Jastrow

Dr Noble attempts to not only climb the highest peak, but also, upon encountering the band of theologians throws them off the edge, thereby, in the greatest form of irony (and futility), establishes himself as god.

[charowarhussain]

I like the way the host provides definitions for scientific ideas . It makes the discussion more understandable and hence enjoyable.

[gardnert]

Probably your best interview yet! Your skill at adding much needed context for us lay-people at the right time is unparalleled!

[wilhelmschroeder]

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".