I prepared this summary for you to have some background and understanding of the topic:
Double helix, as related to genomics, is a term used to describe the physical structure of DNA. A DNA molecule is made up of two linked strands that wind around each other to resemble a twisted ladder in a helix-like shape. Each strand has a backbone made of alternating sugar (deoxyribose) and phosphate groups.
Each molecule of DNA is a double helix formed from two complementary strands of nucleotides held together by hydrogen bonds between G-C and A-T base pairs. Duplication of the genetic information occurs by the use of one DNA strand as a template for formation of a complementary strand.
Nowadays, the DNA double-helix is not just a model of a microscopic organic structure: it symbolises the backbone of our current understanding of ourselves. It’s the main pillar of evolution, which represents our history, influences our behaviour and gives us clues to our future.
The collective body of results shows that the double-stranded structure of DNA is critical not only for replication but also as a scaffold for the correction of errors and the removal of damage to DNA.
*Faults of this gene-centric Neo-Darwinian picture
*The alternative to genetic determinism
Contradicting Richard Dawkins
In this interview, esteemed biologist Denis Noble explains why our approach to biology is the wrong way around.
We thought that the sequencing of genetic information would unlock vast developments in medical cures for a whole host of illnesses. However, sequencing the genome alone hasn’t revolutionised medicine. Denis Noble argues that we have our treatments the wrong way around. Instead, we need to recognise that genes are not on/off switches, and move beyond dualism in Biology.
Watch world-famous scientist Richard Dawkins go head-to-head with celebrated biologist Denis Noble as they debate the role of genes over the eons at https://iai.tv/video/the-gene-machine…
00:00 Introduction
00:26 Why does the idea of genetic determinism have such a lasting appeal?
06:13 What do you see as the fault of this gene-centric Neo-Darwinian picture?
11:22 How did Darwin’s view get distorted by Neo-Darwinism?
14:18 What is the alternative to genetic determinism?
17:55 Can determinism come from the environment?
22:37 What do you make of CRISPR and human enhancement?
24:53 What is the biggest question in molecular biology at the moment?
Oxford Professor and one of the pioneers of Systems Biology, Noble developed the first viable mathematical model of the working heart in 1960.
Denis Noble takes on Richard Dawkins on the causality of change in genetics. Do genes control the organism or does the organism control its genes? Can organisms change their DNA?
Dawkins’ Selfish Gene has been hugely influential, both within evolutionary biology and in the wider public sphere. It’s a beautifully simple story: genes and not organisms drive evolutionary change. But critics argue the story is simplistic. The effect of a gene is not always the same and as is dependent on its host and the cell environment.
DNA does not come neatly divided into individual genes. And in 2010 the renowned biologist EO Wilson and others revived the case for group selection. Some are now arguing that the Selfish Gene paradigm is holding back medical research.
Is it time to move on and acknowledge that Dawkins’ theory is not the whole story? Might his theory be making a fundamental mistake in reducing humans to machines? Or does the Selfish Gene remain a remarkably powerful and accurate account of who we are?
World-famous scientist Richard Dawkins goes head-to-head with celebrated biologist Denis Noble as they lock horns over the role of genes over the eons.
Watch the full debate at: https://iai.tv/video/the-gene-machine…
brain-perks 