Dawkins re-examined: Dawkins' legacy

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

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

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.

So refreshing to see an actual friendly debate for once. Very very fascinating great input from both parties.

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.

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

You have two scientists, one quoting actual studies and literature with amazing specificity, discussing not only the results but the context and the other responding with opinions and conjecture . Truly, people who are famous in certain fields aren’t necessarily the best, or even a representation of the best available knowledge on such field.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

Brilliant conversation. 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!!

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

People seem to have their favorite and aren't fully listening. Too bad.

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

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.