1. Comment #130339 by Enlightenme.. on February 20, 2008 at 11:01 am

Watched this a couple of weeks ago..there's a bit of handbags in it!

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

2. Comment #130340 by z8000783 on February 20, 2008 at 11:08 am

Is there a problem with the feed or is it me?

John

Other Comments by z8000783

3. Comment #130343 by The Bishop on February 20, 2008 at 11:15 am

This is so slow to download that it makes watching it very difficult and frustrating. I've given up. Perhaps there can be a downloadable version somewhere.

Other Comments by The Bishop

4. Comment #130345 by Janus on February 20, 2008 at 11:30 am

Yup, I've given up too. It starts buffering every 10 seconds or so.

Other Comments by Janus

5. Comment #130348 by corduroy11 on February 20, 2008 at 11:42 am

Did anyone else find this discussion to be awkward at times?

Other Comments by corduroy11

6. Comment #130349 by Richard Feldmann on February 20, 2008 at 11:43 am

I watched it via the original link with very few problems. Of course, my work has a lot of bandwidth, so that certainly helped.

There are some very interesting points, especially in the last ten minutes or so. The concept of viruses and bacteria gathering and depositing genetic material across a broad array of species is fascinating. I also like Venter's comment about life being a universal concept, due to the transmission of genetic material between planets and within our own galaxy.

My only gripes about the video are that the coordinators seem very, well, uncoordinated and the format seemed rather unwieldy. Plus, there certainly were some dull people in the audience. The sound team needs to get their thing together. :)

Other than that, I thought it was great.

Other Comments by Richard Feldmann

7. Comment #130353 by Scorchio on February 20, 2008 at 12:01 pm

If I may recommend a browser plugin that can help... It is called DownloadHelper. It looks for video/flash feeds on a webpage and allows you to download and save them to your HD. Not sure if there is a Windows Explorer version but there is definitely one for Firefox users. Do a search on Google and it is the top result.

Hope I haven't broken any rules on my first post. Apologies if I have.

Other Comments by Scorchio

8. Comment #130365 by Tack on February 20, 2008 at 12:22 pm

Direct link: http://data55.sevenload.com/i/aq/bu/dkn1r57/49u.flv

Other Comments by Tack

9. Comment #130370 by Gunnar on February 20, 2008 at 12:44 pm

I think the dismissal of environmental factors, as hinted to in this video, is utterly wrong. Information does not exist in itself, but is only valuable when translated into action - not all kinds of cells are for instance capable of reading all kinds of genes. As an analogy, there is no worth in a book if nobody ever reads it.

The most important part of genes are perhaps the sequence in which they are turned on and off. This is, in embryology, mostly controlled by Hox genes, but also by the available nutrients and the physical and chemical factors of the environments. As far as I know, there are no genetical background for older women having more deformed babies.

What makes genes important is that they are the stable forces between generations. Genes stay the same, except for mutations and recombinations, while the environment is forever changing through extended phenotypes, geological forces, astrophysical interference and other factors.

The answer to the nature vs nurture debate is that it is a false premise - nothing in biology is possible if you haven't got both "nature" (the genes) and "nurture" (the environment). I think Lewontin and his fellow gene sceptics wouldn't be so eager to misunderstand if we gene-sentrics were more clear about this fact.

Other Comments by Gunnar

10. Comment #130392 by pulsar1z on February 20, 2008 at 1:00 pm

Cutting edge thinking, especially the part about the possibility of life, being common throughout the universe. Our knowledge has expanded and there is hope for survival if we use our knowledge wisely.

I loved it

Other Comments by pulsar1z

11. Comment #130394 by notsobad on February 20, 2008 at 1:00 pm

Fascinating. I specifically enjoyed when Venter talked about ecology, because that's often overlooked.

Other Comments by notsobad

12. Comment #130410 by Jiten on February 20, 2008 at 1:10 pm

Craig Venter seems says at one point that because our genome (and presumably that of other species too) has so much viral and bacterial DNA that it makes no sense to talk of "species" and that comparison of genomes to determine relatedness is also meaningless.Is this true or have I got it wrong?

Other Comments by Jiten

13. Comment #130422 by decius on February 20, 2008 at 1:43 pm

"...what has happened is that genetics has become a branch of information technology; it is pure information, digital information..."

...therefore goddidit!

Other Comments by decius

14. Comment #130431 by HourglassMemory on February 20, 2008 at 1:57 pm

I can't watch it!!
Once the man starts talking "1988... 10 years ago..." something elses appears, in German, asking me to give my email and such.
"Schicke dieses Video an einen Freund!"
I don't know what that means...

EDIT: Never mind!
I clicked on the link from where the video comes from, and it seems to be working now. At least it has gone beyond that 1988 part.

Other Comments by HourglassMemory

15. Comment #130434 by sarah95 on February 20, 2008 at 2:04 pm

Please forgive the following inane(maybe even asinine!) comment, but I can't resist:

Richard you appear to have had your hair trimmed!

Fascinating discussion, anyway...that bit about the "gigantic societies of genomes" was great.
;)

Other Comments by sarah95

16. Comment #130446 by kennykyles on February 20, 2008 at 2:24 pm

Did I detect a major collision of ideas on the extent of cross contamination of genetic material? If I did then we must hear the ensuing debates please.

Other Comments by kennykyles

17. Comment #130449 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on February 20, 2008 at 2:30 pm

Enlightenme..

Watched this a couple of weeks ago..there's a bit of handbags in it!

Where??? There are no Handbags. No animosity whatsoever.

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

18. Comment #130451 by Quetzalcoatl on February 20, 2008 at 2:36 pm

Sarah95-

Please forgive the following inane(maybe even asinine!) comment, but I can't resist: Richard you appear to have had your hair trimmed!

Headlines from the leading creationist websites-

"Dawkins In Hair Trim Shock!"

"Atheist Fundamentalist Defies God's Plan For His Hair By Having It Trimmed With Satan's Own Scissors!"

"Beware! Dawkins' Discarded Hair Causes Cancer!"

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

19. Comment #130456 by kennykyles on February 20, 2008 at 2:52 pm

"Craig Venter seems says at one point that because our genome (and presumably that of other species too) has so much viral and bacterial DNA that it makes no sense to talk of "species" and that comparison of genomes to determine relatedness is also meaningless.Is this true or have I got it wrong?"

Jiten, this is exactly what I thought. Sorry I did not read your comment before posting.

Other Comments by kennykyles

20. Comment #130458 by Mitchell Gilks on February 20, 2008 at 2:55 pm

This was very interesting, I had a debate with someone about what I saw to be the largely arbitrariness of taxonomy.

Thought despite that, I would not argue that it isn't useful, or accurate to an extent. This seems to question that even further, as I thought the only objective, or catagoric aspects left in the field were through catalogue, and comparison of genetic similarities. Now, if a distinction between viral transfer of DNA, and relation cannot be asertained, that would remove any objectivity remaining in the field in my opinion, and would leave it completely arbitrary.

I would be every interested to hear more about this, as even RD said he didn't know about that, it must not be commonly discussed, or was untrue. I would like to know which is the case.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

21. Comment #130460 by Mitchell Gilks on February 20, 2008 at 2:59 pm

No both Kennkyles and Jiten. What RD was saying in response to CV, was that if was he was saying was true, then that would make the classifications of species even more unreliable and arbitrary then they already are. It would not make less sense to talk about species, but it would make distinctions far less objective, or determinable.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

22. Comment #130461 by kennykyles on February 20, 2008 at 3:05 pm

I am just wandering what degree of exchange of viral or bacterial genetic material would produce a detectable shunt in a genetic lineage. I am an amature so please excuse my use of terms.

Other Comments by kennykyles

23. Comment #130466 by communsensetoldme on February 20, 2008 at 3:31 pm

whats trim hair??


sorry im nor from arround here :D!

Other Comments by communsensetoldme

24. Comment #130481 by Slyer on February 20, 2008 at 4:43 pm

Before New Zealand was settled it had no rodents, no flies or mosquitos, no pests of any kind!

Other Comments by Slyer

25. Comment #130484 by Jackie.Stone on February 20, 2008 at 4:50 pm

"Craig Venter seems says at one point that because our genome (and presumably that of other species too) has so much viral and bacterial DNA that it makes no sense to talk of "species" and that comparison of genomes to determine relatedness is also meaningless.Is this true or have I got it wrong?"

Indeed. This seems to be what their disagreement was about, right? I would be curious to hear from Prof. Dawkins about whether they discussed this anymore after the end of the public discussion, and whether they came to any sort of agreement?

Other Comments by Jackie.Stone

26. Comment #130485 by Spinoza on February 20, 2008 at 5:01 pm

@ #14: You said you didn't know what this meant: "Schicke dieses Video an einen Freund!".

It means "Send this video to a friend." lol

Other Comments by Spinoza

27. Comment #130486 by Goldy on February 20, 2008 at 5:03 pm

Before New Zealand was settled it had no rodents, no flies or mosquitos, no pests of any kind!

Had mosquitoes http://www.rsnz.org/publish/nzjz/2005/011.php
You'll have to define pests - I'll bet mites have been sitting in hosts for millenia. There are bats here too - not just birds and lizards. mammals were also here until sometime a long time ago (Wikipedia says 19 million years ago).
I remember reading one person's theory that mammals were here until relatively recently. Doesn't make sense that there are none at all. He blamed things like rising sea levels and tsunami for the lack of native mammals. You'll also have to define pests. I dare say the kea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kea) was as much a pest then as it is sometimes considered now.
Given that the classification of flora and fauna is a man made construct, one could argue that it makes no sense anyway, never mind with all the extra DNA baggage we carry around showing our evolutionary past. But I like it - works for me :-)

Other Comments by Goldy

28. Comment #130488 by B12 on February 20, 2008 at 5:15 pm

This may seem a trivial question, but what do they mean when they refer to "ritual" and "open sourcing" in the same sentence?

Also, what is the point of this moderator? (rhetorical)

Other Comments by B12

29. Comment #130493 by Slyer on February 20, 2008 at 5:33 pm

You're right about the mosquitoes.
"New Zealand has 16 species of mosquito, known to Māori as waeroa. Twelve are endemic (unique to New Zealand) and four are introduced."
By pests I was mainly referring to rats and possums, rats first introduced by the Maori and possums introduced by europeans.
Te Papa gave me the wrong idea about the mozzies, didn't it tell me flies were introduced by europeans too?

Other Comments by Slyer

30. Comment #130496 by sarah95 on February 20, 2008 at 5:39 pm

Quetzacoatl,

Thanks for that. I hope Richard reads those faux-headlines and gets a kick out of them.

Other Comments by sarah95

31. Comment #130506 by Zzyx1170 on February 20, 2008 at 6:17 pm

I placed an mp3 of this on RapidShare at:
http://rapidshare.com/files/93573006/Richard-Dawkins_Life--a-gene-centric-view.mp3

Other Comments by Zzyx1170

32. Comment #130512 by Goldy on February 20, 2008 at 6:33 pm

By pests I was mainly referring to rats and possums, rats first introduced by the Maori and possums introduced by europeans.
Te Papa gave me the wrong idea about the mozzies, didn't it tell me flies were introduced by europeans too?

:-) I have read there are flies in the Antarctic so I can't see why the little buggers couldn't have been here plaguing all beforehand. Sodding things.
I have no idea really what was here before and what immigration brought. I know it is a bit fraught though having seen a documentary about Jamestown in the US. Who would have thought the humble bee and worms could wreak such havoc!
Been a while since I have been to W'ton and Te Papa. Should go sometime - get out of Auckland for a bit and unwind.
There was a bit in the paper about introduced species in the UK wreaking havc too. Tried to find it but could only come up with this which is interesting but totally off topic
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/earth/2008/02/18/scicanoe118.xml
Are you interested in it, Josh?

Other Comments by Goldy

33. Comment #130519 by robotaholic on February 20, 2008 at 6:50 pm

I love Richard Dawkins - he's classy

Edit- the Selfish Gene is awesome- I sleep to it constantly

Edit Edit - Nice Blackberry!

Other Comments by robotaholic

34. Comment #130540 by Jolly Bloger on February 20, 2008 at 7:50 pm

This was very interesting. I'm particularly curious about the question Richard kept trying to ask Dr. Venter regarding molecular taxonomy and the transfer of genes across species lines via bacteria. I had never heard of that before and I also was confused by Dr. Venter's responses. Does anyone know more about it? Link to a good explanation?

Thanks!

Other Comments by Jolly Bloger

35. Comment #130552 by MaxD on February 20, 2008 at 8:24 pm

Mitchell Gilks,
I was trying to explain this tick of our nomenclature and taxononmy to krisking as he was so hung up on labels.

Other Comments by MaxD

36. Comment #130553 by dragonfirematrix on February 20, 2008 at 8:36 pm

This was a very interesting lecture.

If I understand this correctly, this is about science creating life, understanding life, different life. This is a quantum leap, a great step for humanity.

Richard states that some people (the religionists, I suspect) will find this achievement as science playing god. First, I would like to say that there is no god, so science cannot play god because god does not exist.

Science can do no more harm to our existence trying to understand and stabilized evolution on our planet, than the random affects of humans and other life on our environment. As for the objections of the religious, maybe science will eliminate the flaw of religion so humanity can evolve through transition to a new level of understanding of our existence beyond the limitations of the belief in gods.

Science will eventually find alien life, science will create life, but regardless of religious objections, science will understand life and convey that understanding to humanity. In spite of the walls the religious try to build to stop the learning of the truth of our existence, science will still prevail…somewhere.

Darwin still rocks!

Evolution is evolution no matter what prompts it. We are still evolving, slowly and methodically, one breath, and one meal at a time.

Other Comments by dragonfirematrix

37. Comment #130560 by Backslidden on February 20, 2008 at 9:09 pm

I found this to be a fascinating discussion! I wish more people took this stuff seriously and were interested in getting involved.

Other Comments by Backslidden

38. Comment #130568 by cychotha on February 20, 2008 at 10:38 pm

I find it very refreshing that Richard Dawkins is ready and willing to make a major revision to his opinion on molecular taxonomy pending more information.

I think it is that quality of scientists and rationalists that i find most intellectually appealing, the willingness to alter even deeply held beliefs based upon new evidence. If a greater percentage of people around the world were to embrace that willingness, the world could be made so much more peaceful and safe for everyone.

Other Comments by cychotha

39. Comment #130569 by MaxD on February 20, 2008 at 11:05 pm

I understand Venter's point about various cross-contamination into the genome's of organisms and at first it sounds like he is onto something. His critique would really be damaging mostly to a lot the early work by Sibley and Alquist (especially their bird work). They utilized DNA hybridization and were not interested in specific genes.

However when I was doing my work on Corvid Phylogenetics I looked primarily at a single highly conserved gene (mitochondrial cyt-b). More than this it seems like you would be wise to use samples from various populations, and in as large a numbers as you can get. This will wash out or identify the kinds of anomolies that Venter seems to think damn molecular taxonomy. Most of the time these genetic analysis fall out the way you would predict from phenotypic analysis alone. I think that is strong evidence that molecular taxonomy has more than a grain of truth to it.

In any event I am not yet convinced by Venter's argument that the whole enterprise is flawed. I too am anxious to hear more of his argument.

Other Comments by MaxD

40. Comment #130573 by Mitchell Gilks on February 20, 2008 at 11:44 pm

MaxD, I agree, and am also not yet convinced. I would very much like to hear more about it.

What you say above, about lables, is very important to point out. Also, about how species are generally seperated, which isn't even really by genetics. I would say genuses are more seperated by genetics, (not implying you don't know this, but am working up to a point) while species are by geography and population. As species in generally defined by biologists as populations that only breed with members of their group, not necessarily can't with other populations, but just don't. So nothing really largely to do with genetics there at all.

This is a major point I think needs to be constantly reiterated to creationists who don't know what a species is, and thinks evolution says that one day one species of animal gave birth to another. Or constantly ask for transitional animals between species, and not genuses, which makes no sense. As every animal is a transitional organism between species.

Taxomony I think is a largely misunderstood field of science. I would be very interested to know if RD expanded on this, as he seemed to be genuinely interested, and said that it would be something he would change his mind on. I suspect that he has either written something about it after this, or is planning to. In eitehr case, I hope to find it.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

41. Comment #130618 by Logicel on February 21, 2008 at 2:46 am

Though Dawkins and Venter were wonderful with their discussing of ideas, Brockman, with his 'laymen' perspective, although quite intellectual, grounded the discussion. Brockman was an asset to the scientists' chat.

I am really warming up to Venter; he reminds me of a lumbering bear, shuffling around, and then with concentrated determination, ruffles up a bee hive and leaves with the honey.

My two fave lines of his from this vid:

We can't play God if there is no God. (Can you get any more brilliant than that!!! Cuts right through the religites' crapola)

Pinker thought evolution has stopped because he has spent so much time at an university. (Venter's independence and business skills help him to sharpen his edge)

Other Comments by Logicel

42. Comment #130629 by notsobad on February 21, 2008 at 3:34 am

Pinker thought evolution has stopped because he has spent so much time at an university. (Venter's independence and business skills help him to sharpen his edge)

That was specifically about people stopping to evolve, which makes it rather funny when you know how some academics live.

Other Comments by notsobad

43. Comment #130643 by UncleJJ on February 21, 2008 at 4:15 am

Fascinating discussion between two great men. Lots of interesting ideas.

If you want to see more of Craig Ventner find the recent 2007 Dimbleby lecture on Google video or Youtube.

Other Comments by UncleJJ

44. Comment #130646 by Styrer- on February 21, 2008 at 4:39 am

Brockman, with his 'laymen' perspective, although quite intellectual, grounded the discussion. Brockman was an asset to the scientists' chat.

I disagree with this. I really couldn't quite follow at times what Brockman's 'contributions' were really adding here - more often than not, they simply slowed down or side-tracked the fascinating to-and-fro between Richard and Craig. I wish he had simply let them get on with it!

The whole of this presentation - except of course for the exchanges between Richard and Craig - had a slightly surreal quality to it, I found, probably a combination of Brockman's slightly off-key offerings and of various journalists addressing Richard but asking about Craig's views and vice versa!

A bit of a disappointment, sorry to say, as I would simply have liked to hear more from the speakers, and especially from Richard.

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

45. Comment #130651 by Tack on February 21, 2008 at 5:19 am

@robotaholic: was it a BlackBerry? I was looking carefully and I couldn't quite tell. Either it was wearing a rubber skin, or it's not a BB. In any case, I was quite curious as I work at RIM. :)

Other Comments by Tack

46. Comment #130707 by kennykyles on February 21, 2008 at 7:20 am

Dr. Venter referring to Prof Dawkin's "school boy howler" with regard to the transfer of genes across species via bacteria also intrigued me.
Maybe this is why pet owners grow to look like their pets. Only kidding.

Other Comments by kennykyles

47. Comment #130776 by the_ultimate_samurai on February 21, 2008 at 9:15 am

i too would like to hear how that discussion with venter turned out.

this discussion was quite interesting i must say, i do wonder the extend of the lateral movement of genes between species and what effects they have on that species.

the gene centric view is quite interesting, but i think even more is the chemical centric view, how all life breaks down to very complex chemistry, it kinda blurs the line between what is alive and what isnt, one that he mentioned that resonated with me on this was the matter that genes arent exactly alive, that is they cant die, they can break down and the information would be lost, but the information is just that, it can be replicated, synthesized, and translated into other things. its information, and its information made of chemicals, those chemicals, as long as they arent bombarded with radiation, can realy survive for insane lengths of time (i dont want to say indefinately, just about everything breaks down given the right amount of time)

but back to the chemical centred view you see realy how mechanistic life is, that the combination of many different chemicals which alow for life tend to just come from the energy of the sun. genes get shuffled, reconnected, flow in flow out, move around in just large complexes of individual chemicals so long as there is energy to supply it.

also there is the possibility of life so vastly different from us, made of different chemicals, or not even chemicals at all. life is but information, and information can come in countless different forms, so the possibility of life unlike anything we know...its a scientifically facinating concept...at least to me.

and of course the creation of life forms to serve us, from the nano technology to the macro biomachines...posibilities are great. also i would like to see some advances made in using artificial organisms to fight deadly organisms. so cells made to target and eliminate cancer cells for instance or bacteria or viruses..

Other Comments by the_ultimate_samurai

48. Comment #130779 by MaxD on February 21, 2008 at 9:21 am

I think Dawkins has a genuine interest in the question because much of the relationships positied in Ancestor's Tale heavily utilizes the work of molecular tasonomy.

I think he and Venter have both hinted at a new taxonomy that simply tracked individual genes through their evolutionary lineages, but Venter is suggesting something quite different, and as it happens more than I think is warranted by the existing evidence.

So until I see a strong presentation of the case Venter makes, in a paper say, I'm going to continue to give the molecular taxonomists the benefit of the doubt.

Other Comments by MaxD

49. Comment #130808 by Spinoza on February 21, 2008 at 10:07 am

... It is indeed a very interesting discussion, but I found Venter's personality annoying... that and his inability to answer questions directly... he seemed to be just repeating the same things over and over...

Other Comments by Spinoza

50. Comment #130811 by liddlefeesh on February 21, 2008 at 10:10 am

I'm still watching, but what PDA was Dawkins using @ 0:06:00?

Other Comments by liddlefeesh