|
| Nick Lane, Gifford lecture 2026 |
Evolutionary biochemist and author Nick Lane for the first time unequivocally rejected DNA- and gene-centric thinking in his Gifford Lecture on 8 Sep 2026.
|
| The paramount position of genes in biology. [8:54] |
In his previous public lectures he promoted the metabolism-first point of view and casually dismissed DNA-centric thinking. Now he started his lecture with a clear rejection of DNA-centric thinking. Since I have been blogging several times about DNA- and gene-centric thinking, I want to bring this lecture to the attention of my regular blog readers.
|
| Are genes a good guide to life on Earth? [21:39] |
I highly recommend this lecture especially for those who never watched a lecture of Nick Lane. This lecture is now the most up-to-date version of his scientific position. Lane is a scientist with original ideas and is not afraid to tackle the most intractable problems in evolution and the origin of life. He doesn't hesitate to confront some mainstream ideas in evolutionary biology. Refreshingly, he adds that his ideas might be wrong! Moreover, he is an excellent popularizer of science. His lectures continue to broaden and sharpen my understanding.
|
| The chemistry is older than genes [52:45] |
The latest evidence shows that Bacteria and Archaea are significantly different in
their genetics, but share the same chemistry. The genes and enzymes that
katalyse the biochemical reactions are not the same [1]. So this is
spontaneous chemistry. Again, this is an argument for the primacy of
chemistry and metabolism. Genes and enzymes arise later [2].
Gert, thanks for this recommendation. And again arguments against the gene-centric view.
ReplyDeleteThe metabolism-first view reminds me of the book The emergence of everything by Harold Morowitz (2002). He was a prominent promotor of the "Metabolism-First" hypothesis, arguing that life's origin began with a network of self-sustaining chemical reactions rather than information-carrying molecules like RNA. He summarized this philosophy with his famous dictum: "Metabolism recapitulates biogenesis." And adenine is at the centre of his hypothesis.
I am going to watch the YouTibe video of Nick Lane in the coming day(s)".
Hi Rolie. I watched the video in two days. Nick Lane is a very good teacher. I have read the paperback The emergence of everything of Harold Morowitz in 2004. (I see this from many annotations and notes in my copy!). Morowitz is of the Metabolism First school of thought; Because all modern life uses very similar basic metabolic pathways, those pathways likely started in pre-life chemistry. This is indeed exactly Nick Lane. So, thanks for bringing this up. I have added a separate entry for this book on my Introduction page of my website. I will add more info. So, thanks again. I see that I have classified Morowitz as a 'theistic evolutionist' on that page. Further, I see on the wikipedia page that In 1981, he testified at "McLean v. Arkansas" ("Scopes II") that creationism has no scientific basis and so should not be taught as science in public schools.
ReplyDeleteIk zie geen adres voor de video.
ReplyDeleteVermoedelijk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WatgWy8Z1s ,
Hoe krijg ik automatische nasynchronisatie weg?
Hoi Gerdien, I have introduced a Read more... button in my blogs to prevent 'Follow it' to mail to complete contents of the blog to subscribers.
ReplyDeleteUnder the fold is more text and Notes and Resources. So click the 'Read more' button and you see the rest.
"Automatisch nagesynchroniseerd" heeft dit geval geen effect (bij mij) omdat je gewoon de originele stem van Lane hoort zonder dat ik iets gedaan heb aan instellingen. Mocht je toch een computerstem horen, dan kun je via het tandwieltje rechtsonder in Youtbe de instellingen 'Audiotrack' wijzigen in: 'Origneel Engels'.
I watched the video in two sessions. Nick Lane gave a very good presentation. The section on the origin of life was too brief for me to understand it well. He had already spent a lot of time on the historical introduction, leaving less time for the final part.
ReplyDeleteI cannot really judge whether his approach is plausible. However, I do wonder if he isn't too optimistic about the formation of carboxylic acids (time point 1:05 to 1:08)—as if CO2 and H could that easily be combined into such compounds. If that were the case, surely we would have the solution to recycle the excess of CO2 in the atmosphere into fuels?
https://youtu.be/9WatgWy8Z1s?t=3881
ReplyDelete...difficult to do it at a lab bench, but we are not 3000 bar pressure down at the bottom of the ocean...
Could it be that it is difficult to reproduce because of the lack of the immense pressure required?
However, I found that 3,000 bar (approx. 43,500 psi) of pressure can be simulated and physically generated within industrial testing systems, so why doesn't he use such a system for his experiments?
Dear Gert,
ReplyDeleteThank you for this wonderful lecture. I watched and listened to it with great pleasure and attention.
Nick Lane is so clear in his explanations, and he is so pleasant to listen to, that two hours are simply not enough. By the way, I also think Richard Dawkins writes, presents, and reasons incredibly well.
Every era has its own perspective, and Dawkins' idea seems to have faded. The centrality of the gene has had its day. Lane mentions that when he finished reading The Selfish Gene, he thought it was a beautiful book, but the idea of merely being a vehicle for genes sat very poorly with him. I felt the same way, but later, once you let it sink in a bit, it provides a beautiful concept of your ancestors, tracing the entire history of life back through time.
As far as I am concerned, the core of Lane's story revolves around the pores in the rock and the sediments of hydrothermal vents. These formed tiny compartments for the first lipids, which in turn organized leaky membranes. In his earlier work, he drew ATPases inside these leaky membranes. (I blogged about it). Even after watching this video, it is still not clear to me where those actually come from. I think I might just have to listen to it once more.
Did you read his latest book ‘Transformer: The Deep Chemistry of Life and Death’? I might buy it even though it mainly treats the Krebs cycle.
Thank you again
Thanks Marleen, you write so beautiful English.
ReplyDeleteYou wrote "The centrality of the gene has had its day." What I see in the mainstream scientific literature is DNA-centric thinking everywhere. That is not exclusively evolution, but all subfields of biology including medical sciences.
Furthermore, it is important to distinguish the Origin of Life field and general biology. According to Nick Lane DNA/RNA centirc thinking prevents a solution to the Origin of Life problem. He didn't say anything about DNA-centrism in general biology, but he could accept a lot there.
You wrote "The centrality of the gene has had its day":
evolution is always based on inherited variation; DNA mutations. Evolution without DNA is impossible. That's why DNA is still central in evolution theory.
I am now preparing a blog with examples of 'cell-centric data' in the mainstream literature. These are the exceptions. DNA-centric thinking is still mainstream: just see the table of Contents of Science and Nature...
You wrote: "In his earlier work, he drew ATPases inside these leaky membranes."
Really?! Could you give me the url of that blogpost?
ATPase is an enzyme = protein = encoded by DNA! however: there are no enzymes and no DNA at hydrothermal vents! not at the Origin of Life! only later when the genetic code evolved!
Did you read his latest book ‘Transformer: The Deep Chemistry of Life and Death’? Yes, and I blogged about it. In stead of reading the book you could watch an interview with Lane about the book. Just let me know.