Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Video: The Dennis Noble lecture in Suzhou China on physiology and Neo-Darwinian evolutionary biology . . . N.B. revolutionary, transforming ideas and facts

arroba Email

Between Sal C and Nullasalus, this has come up:

[youtube RYNLgX50TpU]

Paper can be read here.

Also cf. The Music of Life sourcebook, here.

A key step in the reasoning:

The rise of a more interactive understanding of how DNA, environment and the intracellular network interact with the cell and even organism as a whole in its environment
The rise of a more interactive understanding of how DNA, environment and the intracellular network interact with the cell and even organism as a whole in its environment: the DNA and genome as an organ of the cell, not its “dictator”

Noble’s pivotal point in light of his detailed argument:

Dennis Noble's pivotal point as we move to a new synthesis for inheritance and mechanisms of "evolution"
Dennis Noble’s pivotal point in light of marshalled facts, as we move to a new synthesis for inheritance and mechanisms of “evolution.” The intracellular network changes everything

This is meant to support a thread of discussion, so kindly comment here. END

Kairos and Chance thanks for the video links. I watched first one for now. Denis Noble, what an interesting scientist. There's bonus - he doesn't like Dawkins. :) Eugen
KF@8 Yes, Noble did mention redundancies generally, which was why I mentioned it again, but given that the whole junk DNA thing has been justified on the basis of knockout studies it seemed to open pretty well the whole genome up, which he didn't stress so much. Jon Garvey
KF @5, yes indeed. Neo-Darwinism is dead, and the successor theory of "evolution" is up in the air, but I can hardly imagine a unified theory at this point. Chance Ratcliff
Viral accidental engineers or engineered, front-loading viri? How differentiate? kairosfocus
Last for now: Bell -- Bacterial mosaic? kairosfocus
Bell: Ring not tree of life? My lab likes? kairosfocus
JG: He did bring up knockout studies and a number on redundancies, 80%. Mice were in there, too. KF kairosfocus
JG: A three-parter: 2, 3. I see they begin with TOL and projections on Archaea, with OOL hovering -- and as a part of Darwin 150. So much for the lock-out OOL talking point. A lode well worth mining in for nuggets. Notice the gap between similarish mechanisms in C-Archaea and Eukaryotes, a TOL challenge. KF kairosfocus
Redundancy - didn't actually mention the knockout studies for repetitive elements in mice (if I remember), but that seems extraordinarily relevant. Jon Garvey
F/N: The part on backups for key mechanisms so there is built in redundancy is also very interesting. Complex functional systems with built in balanced redundancies? Where have we heard of such before . . . kairosfocus
Looks like the pillars are bulging and cracking, creaking and groaning . . . kairosfocus
Some might also enjoy this debate, which is really more of a discussion, moderated by Denis Noble: Homage to Darwin part 1. It features Lynn Margulis, Richard Dawkins, Steve Bell, and Martin Brasier, discussing alternatives to Darwinian mechanisms, including questions from the floor. Chance Ratcliff
Noble's book "Music of Life" was written before his interaction with Shapiro et al, but is compatible with it. His approach is very much that of self-organising complex systems, specifically excluding a designing God. "Things just are" - what comes across is somewhat Buddhist in character. Yet like all purveyors of such emergent systems, he's short on accounting for how such complexities actually come to be, though expert at uncovering them and describing them. In this he seems to be like Shapiro, whose "origins" theory is something of a black box: internal ["physiological" - Noble] teleology is there, and essential for evolution, but presumably got there by a natural process that's outside his field of study. Seems to me that as these "teleonomic" theories solidify, ID needs to work on how First Cause design interacts with systems that prove to exhibit "natural" design abilities, rather than being blind and unplanned as the outgoing Neodarwinian paradigm insists. One assumes that the actual mechanisms of cell teleology will at some stage be at least partly elucidated (as Noble's complex feedback loops in heart muscle have. Seems to me simply to push the problem back a stage (in causative rather than merely temporal terms) and give us more wonders to explain, a bit like those beavers with their civil engineering. Once teleology is admitted to nature, I think it will prove hard to do without a Prime Mover. Jon Garvey
Remember, here we have a systems view, interactive paradigm for inheritance that puts an update to even Lamarck on the table. The randomness of mutations is opened up for discussion. Cloning and the implications for evolutionary narratives are on the table. What about that goldfish-carp? Was Crick right, or did he overstate what he found. The point that we have made varieties but not novel species through strongly imposed selection pressure. And more, much more. KF kairosfocus
Folks, Noble is opening up a huge can of worms on the limitations of the Neo-Darwinan synthesis and the prime dogma of genetics, huge! Through a vid lecture at a major conference, no less. Backed up by papers and a compendium reader. Let's talk about it. KF kairosfocus

Leave a Reply