What do you think?
Rate this book
Understanding Life
Understanding Living Systems
Life is definitively purposive and creative. Organisms use genes in controlling their destiny. This book presents a paradigm shift in understanding living systems. The genome is not a code, blueprint or set of instructions. It is a tool orchestrated by the system. This book shows that gene-centrism misrepresents what genes are and how they are used by living systems. It demonstrates how organisms make choices, influencing their behaviour, their development and evolution, and act as agents of natural selection. It presents a novel approach to fundamental philosophical and cultural issues, such as free-will. Reading this book will make you see life in a new light, as a marvellous phenomenon, and in some sense a triumph of evolution. We are not in our genes, our genes are in us.
196 pages, Paperback
Published July 6, 2023
52 people are currently reading
174 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
June 17, 2024
This book deserves 5 stars for what it seeks to do and for what it succeeds in doing. I have to "ding" it just a little for being quite repetitive and sometimes a bit meandering. The points in this book -- which are excellent, and which could and should fundamentally alter how we all view life and agency -- could have been made in half as many pages, without loss.
That being said, I highly recommend this book, especially for anyone interested in the place for agency, choice, adaptation, and evolution in a world that we are constantly told is "mechanistic". This book absolutely explodes the ideas of the "selfish gene", that genes or DNA are the primary causal agents in life or evolution, and indeed the persistent lie (since Descartes) that we are machines. Of course, much of this is covered in the philosophical world, and I could list many better and deeper sources for these insights (e.g. Alva Noe, Peter Hacker, Hubert Dreyfus...). Still, this book is special because it is presented from the standpoint of world-class scientists who are as familiar as anyone in the world with the dogmas of science and the edicts of "Science" with a capital "S" which are imposed upon the lay public.
I truly hope this book will serve to inspire readers to continue investigating the real nature of the world and of living agents. I also hope that the work of Drs. Noble will spur some serious changes in science, especially biology and related fields.
That being said, I highly recommend this book, especially for anyone interested in the place for agency, choice, adaptation, and evolution in a world that we are constantly told is "mechanistic". This book absolutely explodes the ideas of the "selfish gene", that genes or DNA are the primary causal agents in life or evolution, and indeed the persistent lie (since Descartes) that we are machines. Of course, much of this is covered in the philosophical world, and I could list many better and deeper sources for these insights (e.g. Alva Noe, Peter Hacker, Hubert Dreyfus...). Still, this book is special because it is presented from the standpoint of world-class scientists who are as familiar as anyone in the world with the dogmas of science and the edicts of "Science" with a capital "S" which are imposed upon the lay public.
I truly hope this book will serve to inspire readers to continue investigating the real nature of the world and of living agents. I also hope that the work of Drs. Noble will spur some serious changes in science, especially biology and related fields.
August 9, 2024
“We are not in our genes. Our genes are in us.”
This entire book is a rebuttal to Richard Dawkins’ presentation of organisms as survival machines - robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes.
The Nobles seem to agree that genes present a constraint to the organism, but they argue that self-regulating organisms harness the disorder present at lower levels (molecular, cellular, etc.) to create the space for free agency. We’re in charge, they say, not our genes.
I don’t disagree. But Dawkins himself already hinted at this:
”We have the power to defy the selfish genes of our birth and, if necessary, the selfish memes of our indoctrination … We are built as gene machines and cultured as meme machines, but we have the power to turn against our creators. We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators.”
To me, these two viewpoints are entirely compatible. I mean, I’m with the Nobles in attributing some level of freedom to all organisms, not just humans, and I agree that ‘selfish’ is a problematic term when describing a DNA pattern, but with a little editing they both describe the same reality.
Who rules the forest: the mighty trees or the code in their cells?
I say it’s a false dichotomy. A tree is a collective of trillions of cells, each with the same genes. Is tree behavior determined by the cellular collective as a whole or the genes they each depend on? Is highway traffic determined by human society or the size and shape and mechanics of their cars? Both, of course.
Dawkins’ genius lies in his ability to take us out of our traditional reference frame and observe the same phenomena from a new, but equally valid, perspective. It’s a biological version of relativity, and through the “eyes” of the replicators we might just step far enough out of our conceptual boxes to discover even greater mysteries. We just have to remember that the replicator reference frame is no more absolute than our own.
This book felt like a battle against a straw man. When the Nobles argue against gene dominance by demonstrating the power of culture to shape our behavior, they fail to acknowledge that Dawkins' memes are another way to explain the same phenomenon. They make some powerful and insightful points along the way, so I see it as a tragedy that they chose refutation over a more original premise for their book.
This entire book is a rebuttal to Richard Dawkins’ presentation of organisms as survival machines - robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes.
The Nobles seem to agree that genes present a constraint to the organism, but they argue that self-regulating organisms harness the disorder present at lower levels (molecular, cellular, etc.) to create the space for free agency. We’re in charge, they say, not our genes.
I don’t disagree. But Dawkins himself already hinted at this:
”We have the power to defy the selfish genes of our birth and, if necessary, the selfish memes of our indoctrination … We are built as gene machines and cultured as meme machines, but we have the power to turn against our creators. We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators.”
To me, these two viewpoints are entirely compatible. I mean, I’m with the Nobles in attributing some level of freedom to all organisms, not just humans, and I agree that ‘selfish’ is a problematic term when describing a DNA pattern, but with a little editing they both describe the same reality.
Who rules the forest: the mighty trees or the code in their cells?
I say it’s a false dichotomy. A tree is a collective of trillions of cells, each with the same genes. Is tree behavior determined by the cellular collective as a whole or the genes they each depend on? Is highway traffic determined by human society or the size and shape and mechanics of their cars? Both, of course.
Dawkins’ genius lies in his ability to take us out of our traditional reference frame and observe the same phenomena from a new, but equally valid, perspective. It’s a biological version of relativity, and through the “eyes” of the replicators we might just step far enough out of our conceptual boxes to discover even greater mysteries. We just have to remember that the replicator reference frame is no more absolute than our own.
This book felt like a battle against a straw man. When the Nobles argue against gene dominance by demonstrating the power of culture to shape our behavior, they fail to acknowledge that Dawkins' memes are another way to explain the same phenomenon. They make some powerful and insightful points along the way, so I see it as a tragedy that they chose refutation over a more original premise for their book.
September 5, 2024
The book was disappointing. The Noble brothers, though I am sure are amazing scientists, are not good writers. There is a great deal of repetition in a very small book. Not only that but they failed to make their argument cogent. I am already on their side. I think we need to get rid of the closed mindset that allowed Richard Dawkins to make his ridiculous argument about genes being selfish. As the Noble brothers point out repeatedly, how can a gene be selfish if it can't be altruistic? It isn't the genes that control the process of creation of new life. This is the argument. The book does cite several studies that show an evolving picture of how life works. Unfortunately, they don't go into enough detail to make it convincing. I get the impression that they are holding back what they could tell us, because they think that laymen won't understand the science. The mark of a good popular science book is that you present ideas that are very complex so that any intelligent person can understand. The Noble brothers fail to do this.
July 16, 2024
Really enjoyed this book, I think it was timely for me to find and digest, hitting a particular sweet spot for my interests in science, biological and ecological systems, as well as pressing philosophical questions.
The author’s wonder and delight in the living world is contagious, and very well informed. Much of the indicated research was familiar to me, but fit together into the overall expression of the book. It is a book I wish were made standard in school, and might be suitable for 11th or 12th grade students.
The author’s wonder and delight in the living world is contagious, and very well informed. Much of the indicated research was familiar to me, but fit together into the overall expression of the book. It is a book I wish were made standard in school, and might be suitable for 11th or 12th grade students.
August 3, 2024
This distinguished biologist thinks that the Neo-Darwinian theory, which holds that evolution happens as a result of tiny, random alterations in genes (gene mutations), which are then passively picked during the course of natural selection, is completely incorrect. He approaches evolution from a top-down, comprehensive perspective.
“Life is definitively purposive and creative”. Loc. 4
“Could AI manage the huge leap to making water-based ‘computers’ instead of metallic ones?” loc. 3026
“Life is definitively purposive and creative”. Loc. 4
“Could AI manage the huge leap to making water-based ‘computers’ instead of metallic ones?” loc. 3026
January 6, 2026
Great book that could’ve been written better. Still, most of the repetition does serve a point and makes sure their message is loud and clear: the selfish gene paradigm is (or has become) an unhelpful one and based on current science we have a much better way to think about life.
I think they succeeded in making that point, although reading some of the other reviews here I can’t help but notice that some readers have missed it (or are unwilling to receive it).
I think they succeeded in making that point, although reading some of the other reviews here I can’t help but notice that some readers have missed it (or are unwilling to receive it).
April 10, 2025
Decent book, only 190 pages, learned some new ideas like the organ sizes are coming from the Hippo pathways but the main idea of the book that the genes are not the blueprint for an organism, they are not the centric all mighty role we use to think in the 80s and 90s, this idea is repeated in every chapter and gets a little annoying in the end.
January 7, 2026
I’ve just finished Raymond and Denis Noble's Understanding Living Systems. Noble compellingly shows life as a purposive, open phenomenon, critiquing the prevailing gene‑centric reductionism. He traces rising levels of organization - DNA, karyotypes, cell types, organs, phenotypes, ecotypes (niches), and sociotypes - each with greater openness and plasticity. Gene‑centric reductionists overlook how these higher levels impose downward constraints, what Noble terms "biological relativity."
Organisms aren't passive vessels for preserving a "gene pool" whose sole aim is gene perpetuation. Instead, life is marked by active, purposive agency - responding to and anticipating change. Genes function as tools: they transpose, alter expression through epigenetics, and undergo "natural genetic engineering" in response to environmental cues. Because organisms can modify their own genomes, causation isn’t a one‑way street from gene to phenotype.
Too often, researchers overemphasize genetics' causal power, neglecting other critical factors. For instance, the fetal nutrient environment profoundly shapes later health outcomes.
At its core, Noble's book challenges the notion that evolution is driven solely by small, random gene mutations passively filtered by natural selection. He argues that organisms possess built‑in mechanisms directing evolutionary change, harnessing stochasticity within a complex dynamical network, making true randomness untenable. Through these purposive processes, organisms actively edit their genomes.
Organisms aren't passive vessels for preserving a "gene pool" whose sole aim is gene perpetuation. Instead, life is marked by active, purposive agency - responding to and anticipating change. Genes function as tools: they transpose, alter expression through epigenetics, and undergo "natural genetic engineering" in response to environmental cues. Because organisms can modify their own genomes, causation isn’t a one‑way street from gene to phenotype.
Too often, researchers overemphasize genetics' causal power, neglecting other critical factors. For instance, the fetal nutrient environment profoundly shapes later health outcomes.
At its core, Noble's book challenges the notion that evolution is driven solely by small, random gene mutations passively filtered by natural selection. He argues that organisms possess built‑in mechanisms directing evolutionary change, harnessing stochasticity within a complex dynamical network, making true randomness untenable. Through these purposive processes, organisms actively edit their genomes.
December 29, 2024
I love questioning the reductionist approach to science. This book breaks down how this approach can impede our ability to truly understand complex biological systems.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews