A question... What are those green things that come out of nowhere all the time?? If someone could answer that it would really help me understand the whole thing
When you watch this video, and realise the intricate work that goes on inside each and every one of us, don't people think that this is evidence of God's infinite wisdom? I believe it's proof that life didn't occur by chance and just purely scientific chance...
I hate how people Troll around on these science videos. Why are you talking about God and other unrelated matters on a scientific video like this that's there to educate people and show the beauty of nature. If you want to talk about God go do that on religious videos and articles or better yet Church. But if you have something smart to say and Not put down other people's hard work, that's also video related than say it here.
Praise the Lord,Jesus Christ, the Creator God, the One and only Savior of mankind, for the Design in the cell, making it impossible for us to be brought here from chaos or random mutations, thank You Lord that we are not here by chance but by Your love, in Your Name, Amen!
For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.(Psalm 139:13)
It is incredibly funny to see the twisting and turning that evolutionists go through when confronted with absolute evidence for a young earth. They even go to the "alien explanation" at times. I have discerned that the age of the earth is the "key log". And that is where Satan fights the hardest. "Millions of years" are taught to even kindergarten students. Satan understands how the human mind works and he is master manipulator. The Word of God can however wash one's mind clean of his filth
ww w .icr .or g/article/5779/ << Here is a great article that shows after experimental attempts to force evolution upon a species (20 years and 40,000 generations for bacteria, 600 generations for fruit flies) that no evolution could be shown. Also, any changes were found to be detrimental and did not remain fixed in the species. This fixity is something that is absolutely needed for evolution to occur. Instead what was found is what creationist have known for years. Simple variation
@xTKxWoW You really need to watch this video "The Strange Case of Bradley Burroughs" watch?v=wNpp-8_XeSo Perhaps it will give you a clue. Merry Christmas.
Recent studies show that positive emotion/thought such as love, joy, greatfulness and etc. effects human DNA by making the strands longer and more perceptive (meaning uncoding the hidden talents such as ESP, precognition, clairvoyance and others), when negative emotion such as fear, anger, despair and etc. makes DNA shrink, therefore limiting human perception a great deal. One has to establish an ongoing positive thought in order for these change to occur.
The abrahamic god actually sucks. Read any of his books and you'l see he encourages slavery, commands that people are stoned to death for adultery, being gay, etc.
Its' the replication fork. The loops of ss DNA you see is the lagging strand where the okzaki fragments are being produced and the other is the leading strand as can be seen by the continual replication. Correct me if I'm wrong please.
Since no one has answered you: It's DNA Replication. Copying DNA into two identical strands.
DNA transcription to RNA (and on to Translation into protein) is significantly different. You would see a protein unwinding the DNA as it moved and rewinding it after it had passed. (with another 'string' growing out of it.
Same people made an animation of that, don't have the link but should be able to find it somewhere.
Life is too complex to create itself; however, god isn't? So god made himself, then life?
The same evidence "god exists" is also evidence you're nuttier than snickers. So go practice sticking a fork in the toaster while the rest of us puts your 6 thousand year old universe in the fiction section. We used to live on a flat earth, with stars in the sky, our core was hell, and spirits are inside us. Now the earth is a sphere, the stars are in space, our core is lava, and you're full of shit.
This is absolutly beautiful. The insane complexity of living organisms and how they function is truly amazing. It does not however conform or deny the existence of god. We are made up of atoms and molecules following fundamental rules and interactions. Everything that happens within us is not due to devine intervention, but ultimatly the fundamental forces of nature.
God is the greatest scientist ever. He knows the laws of nature better than anyone and uses them to accomplish his purposes. There is room in religion for science, as it is the foundation of the universe.
Creationism isn't science. That does not mean that it is impossible; it just means that it is untestable. Therefore, scientists really have no ability to assess its validity. Selective pressure is almost as big a driving force in nature as entropy itself, yet molecular biologists still do not completely understand the evolution of complex systems such as these. In the end people can believe what they want to, and the scientific community will continue to forge on into the unknown.
Creationism is testable, it fails at every hurdle. Ape DNA is related to Human DNA, Creation is falsified as it predicts that no such connection could be possible, It states different origins. Evolution is not falsified, it is the only reasonable explanation for the similarity which precisely matches predictions about the tree of life model. Religion and 'guiding hand' can coexist with science(although many physicists would disagree), but not biblical creation, In a literal sense anyway.
It is not. Each and every physical and molecular artifact of abiogenesis and evolution COULD have been created, de novo...
The problem is that it essentially CANNOT be tested for--unless, perhaps, one were to start finding SERIAL NUMBERS, or something, stamped on cells.
Evolution can be (and has been) tested in myriad ways. Creationism can never be--it's a meaningless" assertion (sans serial numbers or some other totally overt indicator).
GetMeTere1, Of course Creationism is falsifiable, it keeps making falsifiable claims. Such as the serial number on cells beginning with a new sequence for different species (DNA IS information about replication and ancestry) Creation also predicts geology and cosmology which we do not find. I do not mean to be mean here, great video and want to keep on subject. Literal interpretations of religious texts may give us some questions and aesthetics, however creation does not explain the process.
We may differ on the exact meaning of "creationism." I don't mean a literal reading of the bible (only the profoundest morons try to defend that). I mean those who agree with all of the observable facts uncovered by science (like MANY different fossil layers with hugely different--and generally ever more complex-- fossils, laid down over vast periods of time). For anyone to say, "yeah, what we see is what we see, but it was caused by MAGIC," well, there really is no way to test/disprove that.
GetMeThere1, Perhaps it is the nature of some religious trends and literalist dogma which has made many people, including the vast majority of sensible Christians, put on edge. God is indivisible, everything which exists is a part of the whole, religions, ideas, evolution etc.
Everything we see, measure and touch is a model in our brain; phenomenology.
Numen(latin for deity)is the real we can only imagine. Fundamentalists make an idol out of their books. God cannot be known but is discoverable.
I think I may have fumbled what I was trying to say. My assertion was that creation makes falsifiable claims, many of which are big time falsified. It is not possible to discuss what colour mountain is, if there is no mountain. Geology, DNA etc all falsify creationism, debating with ID is useless, better to concentrate on educating and enlightening those who are interested and ridiculing the nuts who are not, they just want to recruit into their cults and have nothing to offer biology.
sorry i was a bit confused in understanding as well. Well take care of yourself. For me however, this is more than a fight against creationism for evolution. This is a fight for understanding what science means and how it is derived.
Agreed about understanding :) But consider that there is a fraction of creationist proponents who are professional spoilers, they are never going to agree, Arguing with them has merit in so much as it does not leave them looking smug on whatever platform they happen to be using. As for everybody else; most people love learning and understanding new things. People are curious and generally fascinated by nature, if they haven't been bullied into darkness.
That IS translation. I'm sure the blue ones are Ribozomes and the green ones are tRNA. Oh lol i get it. That in fact this is not DNA Replication as the title states but Polypeptide translation. Well at least one person spotted it. Awesome never seen it visualised like this, you can really see the introns and extrons
As a Computer engineer I can tell you that only Darwin himself could have designed DNA replication. Thy shall bow down to Darwin, our chance and luck savior!
Oh wow! This is so amazing. SO amazing! I didn't quite understand what the clamp loader's function entailed but this video made it clear and completely brought together everything I learned in class. Took away my confusion and helped me understand the process so much better!
Awing, what the cell can do...Simply amazing... :)
This animation is from the text "Molecular Biology of the Cell" Fifth edition, by Alberts, Johnson, Lewis, Raff, Roberts, Walter. The music was recorded over the sound. The final credits were deleted.
if Douglas Adams were live I'm sure he would have something to say :D
all stuff around us should be considered as chance. Sure there are laws but chances made em.
Somewhere something happened or nothing happened so much that something came to be providing us with existence. This is a beutiful structure I just love it. Oh and those of you who worry about the origin of things is it god or not. read hitchikkers guide to the galaxy and laugh with the creation and end of everything.made me happy :D
and I totally agree with you that this is an awesome representation, just had college about this the last few weeks and now I could actually see it working, thanks a lot to the people that made this!
Bloody hell, I hate it when creationists say 'they don't believe in an outdated old theory'. Yes, it was made in the 19th century, but time does not invalidate something. Newton's laws are still as potent as they were back in the day,shit moves.
However, Darwin was definitely wrong about some things. But this is SCIENCE, we don't just blindly put our faith in something, we observe, and progress and learn, and so we have seen the theory of evolution 'evolve' since its conception,into its from now
Science is more than just natualism and materialism. Science is about searching for the truth. Just as you don't believe in God, I don't believe that a nineteenth century theory can explain what has just been widely sort-of fully known in the twentieth century, aka DNA.
Keep your bias as you please, but my advice is that you should open your mind for newly discovered evidence although it might be painful because it opposes what you have put your whole trust on.
You should review the McCarty,Mcleod and Avery experiment before saying that the mechanism, moreover it was a theory in the early 20thC, confirmed in the mid 20thC and is being elaborated now in the 21stC. Consider Harvey's postulates of science, it's about educated theories which can be confirmed and re-affirmed. DNA is not exactly a mistery anymore, whilst mechanisms of it's packing are vague to some extent much is known. I mean proteins can be synthesized in vitro - 'nuff said'
I wish that there was a narrator or some text explaining just what exactly is happening in this video. I know it's DNA replication, but if I wasn't told before it started it'd just look like some weird Sci-fi Froot Loop water ballet.
Of course it's real, the cytoplasm is pitch-black and nucleotides arrive out of nothing, not to mention that all polymerases and primases are conveniently distinguished by color, and DNA is apparently purple.
i saw this in my biochemistry course and was blown away... for the complexity and the fact that we have to memorize the proteins involved ;-) if you liked this, i recently watched "Expelled," and there was an amazing clip in there of DNA replication and protein functions. definitely as incredible as this.
To me , even a single plant , flower or a tree is a miracle , and a mystery . How can we explain that all atoms , molecules , cells , can self-organize and grow to make a living organism with functional tissues and organs ? it's magic !
It would be watched by science classes all over the world. With this inspiring music and no words, it would be able to be seen around the world in any language. -Elliot Harrison
This kind of thing would make an excellent movie. A full length film with no words, just all animation of the complex inner-workings of what goes on in your body at any given moment; starting with DNA replication, and moving through mitosis, and so on then flipping to sperm reproduction and sexual reproduction and cild birth, maby some HIV comes into play or something. It would be the major motion picture of the century. A movie to educate the public about the complexity of the human body.
stop bringing religion into it. you're ruining the beauty of this film. it doesnt matter how it came to be, just shut up and appreciate the exquisite molecular machinary shown in this stunning visualization.
this is the on ly video that had EDUCATED people arguing. other videos show people arguing about better basketball players and unimportant shit like that.
Scottymroth, you can't prove god exists either. So it's a 2-way argument. You can't deny evolution nor can you fully prove it. Same with god, except you might have more of a chance with evolution, since it's something that follows the law of physics.
but laws of physics are man made. god gave us the power to make choices, and one man decided to make those laws. god makes the earth what we think of it. and since every year more and more people stop believing in god, he makes it more scientific based.
I think more people are becoming atheists for anthropological reasons, rather than scientific.
Science has no stance on "GOD"... but when you study human cultures, it becomes quite apparent that humans have the innate impulse to create deities that reflect their cultures and the ancient Hebrew God is no exception. The human creation of a deity is another example of our predisposition to look for patterns and order in nature.
I agree anthropology encourages atheism more than science. In fact, many scientists begin to believe in God when they see how complex life really is. What of the argument that the innate predisposition to invent a God is evidence that God does exist. If he did exist, wouldn't he want us to seek him out? Perhaps the pattern of previous cultures paying homage to god is more than just our tendency to make sense of it all, but rather a desire placed in us all by god himself.
That's a good argument, in fact, I heard the exact same argument from Ken Miller when he justified his belief in a God.
The problem with it though, is that populations create dieties in predictable patterns. hunter-gatherers usually have animism, agricultural societies have climate-based polytheism, as well as death and rebirth stories based on the seasons (jesus, mithra, helios, etc.)
The Abrahamic God is exactly the kind of god you'd expect from a people like the early hebrews.
Interesting point. God fitting into a mold that with the culture and time period from which His following began does not negate his existence. If a racist man testifies that a black man committed a crime, this does not rule out the possibility that the black fellow is guilty simply because it is what the racist would want. I'm no historian, but I would think society has changed. Why then has god remained so constant for thousands of years if he was invented to fit the early hebrew needs
As a scientist, I will testify to the fact that the statement "many scientists begin to believe in God when they see how complex life really is" is utter bullshit. Just because you took one biology class in high school and had a misguided epiphany doesn't give you a right to generalize about the professional scientific community.
The fact remains that there ARE scientists whom are brought to question Darwinian evolution. I'm sure 'many' is an overstatement though and you've got me there. Francis Collins, leader of Human Genome Project, is a prominent example. In his book, The Language of God, he rejects creationism and intelligent design but goes on to argue that evolution and God are not mutually exclusive. It seems as though you are generalizing as well, unless you propose Collins is full of "utter bullshit".
You misread my statement; I never said the two were mutually exclusive. But suggesting that significant numbers of scientists often become born-agains because of their research is just obnoxious, and that's what you did. And I don't propose Francis Collins is full of utter bullshit, I just propose you are. There are plenty of religious scientists, many of whom I know personally, but it's not the science that inspires them to faith, and that's the only counterpoint I am making.
hmmm my friend "laws of physics are man made" if you ever jump off a cliff and fall to your death on the way ask yourself what bastard invented gravity! man OBSERVES the physical world around him, and translates the view into the lanuage of mathematics, the laws of physics can not be created or changed. if you dont understand that explination you really need to read some books, and no the bible dosent count!!!!
that is not what i meant. what i mean is that it's possible that it could be something else such as a work of god, but some guy could of made some random work for it, and god shows nothing to prove that its him because as i said, he makes earth what we think of it. i dont really care if you disagree with me because we both have different opinions. i appreciate the comment though
VERY unlikely no matter how long the earth has been around. The systems are too complex. There must be a driving force, just as there are driving forces behind evolution. It is stupid to come to the simplest conclusion when we cant find a scientific answer, but I think we will never know what the driving forces were behind chemical evolution. So then will the existence of a creator be an acceptable hypothesis, or will we sadly continue to deny Him in hopes that we can prove He does not exist?
Another confusion for me about the theory of evolution is how the first self replicating molecule came about. To me evolution makes no sense when applied to molecules. They are not competing for resources. There is no molecule that is more fit than another. To me evolution makes sense for living reproducing things, but what was the driving force of the production of self replicating molecules? Random chance?
Life is a controlled reaction. More complex reactions are able to utilize energy unused by simpler reactions. Consider the comparative metabolisms of humans and yeast cells. Humans are able to crank out much more energy with a much more complex and specific reaction. If a reaction creates more energy it can continue for longer before dieing out.
Oh and scottymroth, I share your problem about trial and error in nature as well. "Trial and error" is a common misconception of the forces in evolution. Trial and Error indicates a direction, or a goal in mind, which nature/evolution does not have. Indeed a trial would have to have an initiating force. Nature evolves by random changes in environmental pressures. Adaptations are not intentional, mutations by random chance or a genenetic bottle kneck that results in allele frequency change.
It's not a great movie, but it has an interesting and poignant quotation. "1000 years ago, everyone knew the earth was the center of the Universe. 500 years ago, everyone knew the earth was flat. 15 minutes ago you knew people were alone on this planet (not pertinent). Imagine what we will know tomorrow." - K from Men in Black.
The alien part is not important, I know, but it raises a significant point. Science doesn't have all the answers, but GOD is not science, and is not its opposite.
I can understand that not everyone has the resources or tme to become educated on evoluton, genetics, chemistry, and population biology. But what I will never understand is the illogical conclusion that just because one doesn't know the answer to a question about our past, one assumes the existence of a supernatural being. Could it be that we don't the answer YET, but that we will soon and the solution is NOT a supernatural being? Isn't that just as likely?
The system above works based on these universal laws. It is why, it is how. gravity has always been. A negative charge will always be attracted to a positive charge, it is this way now and it always has been. These properties (and many others) are why replication works, AND they are why the system developed. Replication is a highly evolved, refined process. What was once as simple as one nucleotide base joining and forming an identical nucleotide and then releasing it, has become so complex.
It's not simply saying why it works, it is why/how it works. Ever heard of uniformitarianism? It says that the same processes that affect the present, affected the past, and gradually. I won't go into the proofs of why this is so, but this concept is one of the few ways that scientists can know anything about the past. There are physical laws that govern the universe: gravity (essentially a mass interaction), motion, laws of optics, etc...
Also i have a problem with the claim that nature has a trial and error system. We all know that a trial has to come from somewhere or something and that trials have to have some sort of direction to them. If Nature is just nature, like you all claim, then how does it make trials? There is no reasonable explanation, other than a supernatural being, as to how or why the first macromolecules formed and later learned to copy themselves. No other molecules in nature copy themselves.
Monnetti's response that "the proteins have specific interactions that govern where to cut, fuse, build etc." is like simplifying a complex computer system to.. "well all it is is a specific directed flow of electrons, they dont have a mind of their own." well what is that statement supposed to tell you? It says nothing. All it does is explain why the system works. The question we are trying to answer her is how the system came about.
On a ligher note, this is a very beautiful model. It's hard to believe that the actual process is exponentially faster. Was this created by Harvard, I read somewhere that it was? Anyone know?
As miraculous and beautiful as this process is, it is still not perfect. GOD believers: why would HE/SHE make something that isn't perfect? Our eyes are often used as examples for creationism or intelligent design. Why then, do Cephalopods have more efficient eyes than we do? Evolution has no direction, and no greater plan, the organisms that are best equipped to reproduce will do so at a greater rate. This will change how future organisms are, replication is essential to this.
That statistic does not support the existence of a higher power, those that deduce that have tunnel vision and can only see the final product. The mechanism should be efficient and accurate after millions of years of evolution. Proteins (coded for by genes) that are not accurate will result in organisms that cannot reproduce, thus their genes become relics. Over time the process is streamlined; only the most efficient genes are left, as the less fit genes are excised.
GOD: The only logical explanation for those who lack the encompassing knowledge to execute proper logic. The video above is amazing. Think of this statistic, if our cells had an error rate of 1 in 1 million (that is 1 error out of every 1 million base pairs) then there would still be 3000 mistakes every time our DNA was replicated. An organism would die very quckly as those errors accumulated. Our replication mechanism is extraordinarily accurate and efficient.
So amazing. To see this, it blows your mind and yet you know that even this video simplifies it 100 fold. In truth, you could never see what really happens because a haze of random molecules would be buzzing around lol.
It would be watched by science classes all over the world. With this inspiring music and no words, it would be able to be seen around the world in any language. -Elliot Harrison
This kind of thing would make an excellent movie. A full length film with no words, just all animation of the complex inner-workings of what goes on in your body at any given moment; starting with DNA replication, and moving through mitosis, and so on then flipping to sperm reproduction and sexual reproduction and cild birth, maby some HIV comes into play or something. It would be the major motion picture of the century. A movie to educate the public about the complexity of the human body.
Information has to be given by a conscious source e.g. you can't scramble up all the letters in a newspaper and expect them to return to the original understandable form! because it won't! and it needed a conscious mind (us) to rearrange them into the right order
That's assuming there's such a thing as a "right" order. You are right that we need a conscious mind to interpret raw data as being "information"--a concept we construct with our minds. Ice crystals grow into fascinating patterns on a cold window pane, but they are being arranged in that way because of the mathematical properties of their atomic structure.
These proteins and DNA sequences are all arrange in a particular and precise way that the 3D folded structure that comes from a 2D information can give so much functions.
SO who give them the information to form these precise 3D structure when there were simply swimming in an endless "sea of organic molecules"??
Also, biologists use enzymes as tools to do the work they do, how else could it be done? We don't yet posses the technological capability to reproduce all that nature can.
Mezon, enzymes are complex molecules that are able to do what they do via numerous chemical interactions.
You expect a biologist to replicate DNA with what...his bare hands? As a biologist has enzymes as part of his genetic make-up he is replicating DNA all the time within himself, just as you or I are; so indirectly he can replicate DNA.
Is there supposed to be two seperate strands of DNA after transcription? if so, this would result if two stands containing the same Genetic intron codings of Dna material as replaced by RNA
This has been flagged as spam show
A question... What are those green things that come out of nowhere all the time?? If someone could answer that it would really help me understand the whole thing
Franzisification 2 months ago
Histones are missing too. That's a shame
richerchase 4 months ago
fantastic animation !
t4ker 9 months ago
modelo TROMBÓN de la replicación de ADN =)
anikacrazy91mur 10 months ago
Trombone model!
aaerosshan 10 months ago
This video is about science. Not religion. I am a believer, however this is not the place.
MisterNiceGuy188 10 months ago
When you watch this video, and realise the intricate work that goes on inside each and every one of us, don't people think that this is evidence of God's infinite wisdom? I believe it's proof that life didn't occur by chance and just purely scientific chance...
MrBioWhiz 10 months ago
I hate how people Troll around on these science videos. Why are you talking about God and other unrelated matters on a scientific video like this that's there to educate people and show the beauty of nature. If you want to talk about God go do that on religious videos and articles or better yet Church. But if you have something smart to say and Not put down other people's hard work, that's also video related than say it here.
NeutronX101 1 year ago
SCIENCE!
DeusExWolksvagen 1 year ago
Praise the Lord,Jesus Christ, the Creator God, the One and only Savior of mankind, for the Design in the cell, making it impossible for us to be brought here from chaos or random mutations, thank You Lord that we are not here by chance but by Your love, in Your Name, Amen!
For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.(Psalm 139:13)
Serge1965 1 year ago
@Serge1965 BOO GOD!!!!
lancetrophy 10 months ago
@Serge1965 no no no.you are mistaken,it was not jesus.it was Ishtar
Samura1gamer 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It is incredibly funny to see the twisting and turning that evolutionists go through when confronted with absolute evidence for a young earth. They even go to the "alien explanation" at times. I have discerned that the age of the earth is the "key log". And that is where Satan fights the hardest. "Millions of years" are taught to even kindergarten students. Satan understands how the human mind works and he is master manipulator. The Word of God can however wash one's mind clean of his filth
thechessstick 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ww w .icr .or g/article/5779/ << Here is a great article that shows after experimental attempts to force evolution upon a species (20 years and 40,000 generations for bacteria, 600 generations for fruit flies) that no evolution could be shown. Also, any changes were found to be detrimental and did not remain fixed in the species. This fixity is something that is absolutely needed for evolution to occur. Instead what was found is what creationist have known for years. Simple variation
thechessstick 1 year ago
@xTKxWoW You really need to watch this video "The Strange Case of Bradley Burroughs" watch?v=wNpp-8_XeSo Perhaps it will give you a clue. Merry Christmas.
thechessstick 1 year ago
@xTKxWoW Guess it is over your head. Sorry.
thechessstick 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Recent studies show that positive emotion/thought such as love, joy, greatfulness and etc. effects human DNA by making the strands longer and more perceptive (meaning uncoding the hidden talents such as ESP, precognition, clairvoyance and others), when negative emotion such as fear, anger, despair and etc. makes DNA shrink, therefore limiting human perception a great deal. One has to establish an ongoing positive thought in order for these change to occur.
RUSSKAYAG 1 year ago
omg. this is unbelievable! life is pure art and beauty!
KrkDexter91 1 year ago
This is art . It's absolutely beautiful
krypternova 1 year ago
See the ORIGINAL HIGH QUALITY VERSION and other movies by the same animator at our WEHImovies YouTube channel
WEHImovies 1 year ago
@xTKxWoW No. I am only 52.
thechessstick 1 year ago
The abrahamic god actually sucks. Read any of his books and you'l see he encourages slavery, commands that people are stoned to death for adultery, being gay, etc.
DutchNordic 1 year ago
Awsome!!!
thebrillopad 1 year ago
OMG!!!!!!!!!!..
HAIL DNA!!!!!!!!
oxfordyes 1 year ago
its music!
rreynaud1 1 year ago
omg this helped me so much in bmz. -_-
bballerskk15 1 year ago
WOW! What an awesome design! GOD IS GREAT!
thechessstick 2 years ago
has anyone seen this video with techno music?
oscar1800 2 years ago
Ironically, the song is "It Must be the Light" from the Gattaca soundtrack
woodt3 2 years ago 2
Does anyone know what this song is?
malmo722 2 years ago
the beauty of science ;)
5/5
MALKton 2 years ago 5
NO WAI
Fettlaus 2 years ago
Must have taken a very long time to make the system models in this animation , looks really good
jmm1233 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
you can see more website links on
DnaFreeTest[dot]Com
vagaivck 2 years ago
SSB proteins are missing!
Someordinaryone 2 years ago 10
Comment removed
samimoh8 2 years ago
this is what I consider molecular beauty
BossHossGT500 2 years ago 4
lovely but didn't get it.
BabyMelly 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
DNA transcription! duh!
intelligentfalling 2 years ago
Replication...
arisroos1986 2 years ago
Its' the replication fork. The loops of ss DNA you see is the lagging strand where the okzaki fragments are being produced and the other is the leading strand as can be seen by the continual replication. Correct me if I'm wrong please.
mtbers 2 years ago 2
its like a tiny, fluffy assembly line
MellyissaPhysco 2 years ago 4
That was an.. DNS to RNS transcryption.. rns synthesis right? (might be wrong -.- ) thx for upload i think its great :D
HunBountyHunter007 2 years ago
Since no one has answered you: It's DNA Replication. Copying DNA into two identical strands.
DNA transcription to RNA (and on to Translation into protein) is significantly different. You would see a protein unwinding the DNA as it moved and rewinding it after it had passed. (with another 'string' growing out of it.
Same people made an animation of that, don't have the link but should be able to find it somewhere.
ProtonStalker 2 years ago 3
Thank you : ) !
HunBountyHunter007 2 years ago
Life is too complex to create itself; however, god isn't? So god made himself, then life?
The same evidence "god exists" is also evidence you're nuttier than snickers. So go practice sticking a fork in the toaster while the rest of us puts your 6 thousand year old universe in the fiction section. We used to live on a flat earth, with stars in the sky, our core was hell, and spirits are inside us. Now the earth is a sphere, the stars are in space, our core is lava, and you're full of shit.
evilsinz 2 years ago 3
@evilsinz I agree. But I don't understand this: isn't this "complexity, " general to humans?
conturnal 1 year ago
truly an art seriously beautifully done keep it up good work animator
abhimanyurajvanshi 2 years ago
GREAT!
GetMeThere1 3 years ago
epic
LeniInChains 3 years ago
Prodigieux !
marchmalow83 3 years ago
En effet!
esettles 3 years ago
Ahhhh I see it now.... The zoom in makes more sense. The deep blue is helicase, yeap and i see the leading and lagging strands...
daymyth 3 years ago
This is absolutly beautiful. The insane complexity of living organisms and how they function is truly amazing. It does not however conform or deny the existence of god. We are made up of atoms and molecules following fundamental rules and interactions. Everything that happens within us is not due to devine intervention, but ultimatly the fundamental forces of nature.
Somarium 3 years ago
tanks!!!
diana914roam 3 years ago
does anyone know the name to this song because it most certainly is not black napkins by frank zappa
spaz220 3 years ago
It's from the movie GATTACA... Peculiarly enough... Michael Nyman composer
daymyth 3 years ago
God is the greatest scientist ever. He knows the laws of nature better than anyone and uses them to accomplish his purposes. There is room in religion for science, as it is the foundation of the universe.
racevws 3 years ago
Creationism isn't science. That does not mean that it is impossible; it just means that it is untestable. Therefore, scientists really have no ability to assess its validity. Selective pressure is almost as big a driving force in nature as entropy itself, yet molecular biologists still do not completely understand the evolution of complex systems such as these. In the end people can believe what they want to, and the scientific community will continue to forge on into the unknown.
whiteknight521 3 years ago
Creationism is testable, it fails at every hurdle. Ape DNA is related to Human DNA, Creation is falsified as it predicts that no such connection could be possible, It states different origins. Evolution is not falsified, it is the only reasonable explanation for the similarity which precisely matches predictions about the tree of life model. Religion and 'guiding hand' can coexist with science(although many physicists would disagree), but not biblical creation, In a literal sense anyway.
marsCubed 3 years ago
Mice DNA and Pigs DNA are also incredibly similar to human DNA. Why don't u talk about this?
o0abdo0o 3 years ago
marsCubed: "Creationism is testable."
It is not. Each and every physical and molecular artifact of abiogenesis and evolution COULD have been created, de novo...
The problem is that it essentially CANNOT be tested for--unless, perhaps, one were to start finding SERIAL NUMBERS, or something, stamped on cells.
Evolution can be (and has been) tested in myriad ways. Creationism can never be--it's a meaningless" assertion (sans serial numbers or some other totally overt indicator).
GetMeThere1 3 years ago
GetMeTere1, Of course Creationism is falsifiable, it keeps making falsifiable claims. Such as the serial number on cells beginning with a new sequence for different species (DNA IS information about replication and ancestry) Creation also predicts geology and cosmology which we do not find. I do not mean to be mean here, great video and want to keep on subject. Literal interpretations of religious texts may give us some questions and aesthetics, however creation does not explain the process.
marsCubed 3 years ago
We may differ on the exact meaning of "creationism." I don't mean a literal reading of the bible (only the profoundest morons try to defend that). I mean those who agree with all of the observable facts uncovered by science (like MANY different fossil layers with hugely different--and generally ever more complex-- fossils, laid down over vast periods of time). For anyone to say, "yeah, what we see is what we see, but it was caused by MAGIC," well, there really is no way to test/disprove that.
GetMeThere1 3 years ago
GetMeThere1, Perhaps it is the nature of some religious trends and literalist dogma which has made many people, including the vast majority of sensible Christians, put on edge. God is indivisible, everything which exists is a part of the whole, religions, ideas, evolution etc.
Everything we see, measure and touch is a model in our brain; phenomenology.
Numen(latin for deity)is the real we can only imagine. Fundamentalists make an idol out of their books. God cannot be known but is discoverable.
marsCubed 3 years ago
watch my videos on evidence for evolution and the logical argument of bayesian inference which shows the unscientific basis of your arguments.
truthofevolution 3 years ago
I apologize, I didnt see that your know the importance of prediction, but nothing in creationism has been verified.
Also I dont know if you mean a literal interpretation of the bible as creationism.
truthofevolution 3 years ago
I think I may have fumbled what I was trying to say. My assertion was that creation makes falsifiable claims, many of which are big time falsified. It is not possible to discuss what colour mountain is, if there is no mountain. Geology, DNA etc all falsify creationism, debating with ID is useless, better to concentrate on educating and enlightening those who are interested and ridiculing the nuts who are not, they just want to recruit into their cults and have nothing to offer biology.
marsCubed 3 years ago 3
sorry i was a bit confused in understanding as well. Well take care of yourself. For me however, this is more than a fight against creationism for evolution. This is a fight for understanding what science means and how it is derived.
truthofevolution 3 years ago 2
Agreed about understanding :) But consider that there is a fraction of creationist proponents who are professional spoilers, they are never going to agree, Arguing with them has merit in so much as it does not leave them looking smug on whatever platform they happen to be using. As for everybody else; most people love learning and understanding new things. People are curious and generally fascinated by nature, if they haven't been bullied into darkness.
Good luck to you too thruthofevolution.
marsCubed 3 years ago
Writing ass a professional.........?
Romeerick 3 years ago
Ehh...I prefer translation. ;-)
sonofglea3 3 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
That IS translation. I'm sure the blue ones are Ribozomes and the green ones are tRNA. Oh lol i get it. That in fact this is not DNA Replication as the title states but Polypeptide translation. Well at least one person spotted it. Awesome never seen it visualised like this, you can really see the introns and extrons
daymyth 3 years ago
this is DNA Replication
bkrakow 3 years ago
As a Computer engineer I can tell you that only Darwin himself could have designed DNA replication. Thy shall bow down to Darwin, our chance and luck savior!
BTW, he also invented the internet!
carnage123123123 3 years ago
Oh wow! This is so amazing. SO amazing! I didn't quite understand what the clamp loader's function entailed but this video made it clear and completely brought together everything I learned in class. Took away my confusion and helped me understand the process so much better!
Awing, what the cell can do...Simply amazing... :)
highyellow 3 years ago 2
This animation is from the text "Molecular Biology of the Cell" Fifth edition, by Alberts, Johnson, Lewis, Raff, Roberts, Walter. The music was recorded over the sound. The final credits were deleted.
F1ATPase 3 years ago 2
Notice the abundance of religious comments about this video. If the video had no glorious music the comments would not exist.
DeePhlat 3 years ago
¨ღ¨ OH my GOD ¨ღ¨
¨ღ¨ butiful , favor movie ¨ღ¨
¨ღ¨how many enzym ?how many nuclutid?? how many pond ?? and how time that need ??¨ღ¨
¨ღ¨ all that endicator for GOD ¨ღ¨
¨ღ¨ i wish u read about God and God creative ¨ღ¨
¨ღ¨ thank u very much for this perfect animation ¨ღ¨
7anadi 3 years ago
if Douglas Adams were live I'm sure he would have something to say :D
all stuff around us should be considered as chance. Sure there are laws but chances made em.
Somewhere something happened or nothing happened so much that something came to be providing us with existence. This is a beutiful structure I just love it. Oh and those of you who worry about the origin of things is it god or not. read hitchikkers guide to the galaxy and laugh with the creation and end of everything.made me happy :D
midian11 3 years ago
I see a ...a miracle...i see God in this wonderful events! [345]
6i3094534053984 3 years ago
whoa i just realized that weird thing the upper side does is nothing but the binding of okazaki fragments
awesome representation
Balaskh 3 years ago
and I just realized the green/yellowish thing synthesises them
finalart2005 3 years ago
and I totally agree with you that this is an awesome representation, just had college about this the last few weeks and now I could actually see it working, thanks a lot to the people that made this!
finalart2005 3 years ago
NEW TOPIC: Elliotman07's movie idea-...
Elliotman07 3 years ago
Bloody hell, I hate it when creationists say 'they don't believe in an outdated old theory'. Yes, it was made in the 19th century, but time does not invalidate something. Newton's laws are still as potent as they were back in the day,shit moves.
However, Darwin was definitely wrong about some things. But this is SCIENCE, we don't just blindly put our faith in something, we observe, and progress and learn, and so we have seen the theory of evolution 'evolve' since its conception,into its from now
rowanofrin1 3 years ago 2
Science is more than just natualism and materialism. Science is about searching for the truth. Just as you don't believe in God, I don't believe that a nineteenth century theory can explain what has just been widely sort-of fully known in the twentieth century, aka DNA.
Keep your bias as you please, but my advice is that you should open your mind for newly discovered evidence although it might be painful because it opposes what you have put your whole trust on.
thnguyen24 3 years ago
You should review the McCarty,Mcleod and Avery experiment before saying that the mechanism, moreover it was a theory in the early 20thC, confirmed in the mid 20thC and is being elaborated now in the 21stC. Consider Harvey's postulates of science, it's about educated theories which can be confirmed and re-affirmed. DNA is not exactly a mistery anymore, whilst mechanisms of it's packing are vague to some extent much is known. I mean proteins can be synthesized in vitro - 'nuff said'
MitchoK1989 3 years ago
I see a ...a miracle...i see god in this wonderful events!
isaacblu 3 years ago
i see Enzyms in theese wonderful events!
valepu86 3 years ago 5
You're a man of science and i'm a man of faith!
isaacblu 3 years ago 3
and a man of sport would see Baseball Bats and balls?
valepu86 3 years ago
ahahahahah!
isaacblu 3 years ago
I see evolution has come a long way!
wtfudimbo 3 years ago
It's Perfect :D
patrickbrokenmirror 3 years ago
>> "there ARE scientists whom [sic]
>> are brought to question Darwinian
>> evolution"
Well of course. They ALL do! A scientist, by definition, questions every scientific theory and tests it against the evidence.
Darwin's theory has withstood this process so far.
But the sacred texts of religions are NOT supposed to be questioned - usually there is no experiment that could be performed anyway.
I grow a little tired of evangelists who attack evolution by misrepresenting it.
byrden 3 years ago
I wish that there was a narrator or some text explaining just what exactly is happening in this video. I know it's DNA replication, but if I wasn't told before it started it'd just look like some weird Sci-fi Froot Loop water ballet.
Omnywrench 3 years ago
It's such a shame that a beautiful video like this has to spoilt by bloody god-botherers.
Religion has nothing to do with science. Now bugger off or we'll go to your churches and replace your hymn books with The Origin Of The Species.
kelra333 3 years ago 4
Bloody god-botherers indeed, always seeking to shut science down. Amazing how blinked they are in their belief, it just astounds me.
rowanofrin1 3 years ago
I hear that, with reference to the Gospel of Family Guy ..."how Christian of you - believe what I say or i'll hit you"
MitchoK1989 3 years ago
true.
its unbelievable how we can be blinded by faith! imagine what the world will be without god freaks and religious fools?
Id say much more advanced and peaceful!
wtfudimbo 3 years ago 2
IS This REAL?!?!?!! or just compuiter generated?
ramiguin 3 years ago
Of course it's real, the cytoplasm is pitch-black and nucleotides arrive out of nothing, not to mention that all polymerases and primases are conveniently distinguished by color, and DNA is apparently purple.
You're an idiot.
mcclxix 3 years ago 3
Excuse me, nucleoplasm, not cytoplasm, but that's pitch-black too.
mcclxix 3 years ago
i saw this in my biochemistry course and was blown away... for the complexity and the fact that we have to memorize the proteins involved ;-) if you liked this, i recently watched "Expelled," and there was an amazing clip in there of DNA replication and protein functions. definitely as incredible as this.
sethlythedj 3 years ago 2
Amazing! More creationists should see this
batukhan 3 years ago
To me , even a single plant , flower or a tree is a miracle , and a mystery . How can we explain that all atoms , molecules , cells , can self-organize and grow to make a living organism with functional tissues and organs ? it's magic !
wildtothebones 3 years ago
~(please give ideas)~
Elliotman07 3 years ago
It would be watched by science classes all over the world. With this inspiring music and no words, it would be able to be seen around the world in any language. -Elliot Harrison
Elliotman07 3 years ago
This kind of thing would make an excellent movie. A full length film with no words, just all animation of the complex inner-workings of what goes on in your body at any given moment; starting with DNA replication, and moving through mitosis, and so on then flipping to sperm reproduction and sexual reproduction and cild birth, maby some HIV comes into play or something. It would be the major motion picture of the century. A movie to educate the public about the complexity of the human body.
Elliotman07 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Allahu Akbar!
MuslimGhost 3 years ago
stop bringing religion into it. you're ruining the beauty of this film. it doesnt matter how it came to be, just shut up and appreciate the exquisite molecular machinary shown in this stunning visualization.
PeppeGuiseppe 3 years ago 14
@PeppeGuiseppe
Whenever I look at beautiful art I always inquire about the artist. It's only natural.
jesserobertray 1 year ago
AT-GC
Music : Black Napkins (Frank Zappa)
Qurqetequrq 3 years ago
nice video!! :o
Nebulousss 3 years ago
what's the name of the song??
Maravillosa la ADN pol III
paulknight89 3 years ago
it would be soo cool if they built a real life working model of this!!!
dt28469 3 years ago
Stunningly beautiful. My heart hurts.
gohenderson 3 years ago 2
I really like this animation
thatcherthatch1127 3 years ago
And now realise this process takes place in every one of your 200 billion cells, constantly... Respect for the body (Y)
Smonjirez 3 years ago
It's nice to see how the lagging strand is taken care of, I never realized how the polymerase stays near the junction.
JagKhan 3 years ago
What a beautiful way to ilustrated the simple but complex process of life
fandejesu 4 years ago
this is the on ly video that had EDUCATED people arguing. other videos show people arguing about better basketball players and unimportant shit like that.
Ihatederick123 4 years ago
random chance + fitness= evolution
estupefacto8 4 years ago
Scottymroth, you can't prove god exists either. So it's a 2-way argument. You can't deny evolution nor can you fully prove it. Same with god, except you might have more of a chance with evolution, since it's something that follows the law of physics.
Alex06CoSonic 4 years ago
but laws of physics are man made. god gave us the power to make choices, and one man decided to make those laws. god makes the earth what we think of it. and since every year more and more people stop believing in god, he makes it more scientific based.
Ihatederick123 4 years ago
I think more people are becoming atheists for anthropological reasons, rather than scientific.
Science has no stance on "GOD"... but when you study human cultures, it becomes quite apparent that humans have the innate impulse to create deities that reflect their cultures and the ancient Hebrew God is no exception. The human creation of a deity is another example of our predisposition to look for patterns and order in nature.
estefez 3 years ago 3
I agree anthropology encourages atheism more than science. In fact, many scientists begin to believe in God when they see how complex life really is. What of the argument that the innate predisposition to invent a God is evidence that God does exist. If he did exist, wouldn't he want us to seek him out? Perhaps the pattern of previous cultures paying homage to god is more than just our tendency to make sense of it all, but rather a desire placed in us all by god himself.
runningbull3 3 years ago
That's a good argument, in fact, I heard the exact same argument from Ken Miller when he justified his belief in a God.
The problem with it though, is that populations create dieties in predictable patterns. hunter-gatherers usually have animism, agricultural societies have climate-based polytheism, as well as death and rebirth stories based on the seasons (jesus, mithra, helios, etc.)
The Abrahamic God is exactly the kind of god you'd expect from a people like the early hebrews.
estefez 3 years ago 3
Interesting point. God fitting into a mold that with the culture and time period from which His following began does not negate his existence. If a racist man testifies that a black man committed a crime, this does not rule out the possibility that the black fellow is guilty simply because it is what the racist would want. I'm no historian, but I would think society has changed. Why then has god remained so constant for thousands of years if he was invented to fit the early hebrew needs
runningbull3 3 years ago
I would argue that "God" has changed dramatically in thousands of years:
Before the OT, Yahweh was one of 70 gods who were children of El, part of the pantheon Eloheim. Each god was given dominion over different cultures.
In the OT, Yahweh the hebrew god, while other gods still exist. He is a tyranical dictator who demands animal sacrifice and genocide.
In the NT God is a benevolent king through Christ, with the new concepts of heaven vs. hell.
Today God/Christ is a personal friend.
estefez 3 years ago 2
As a scientist, I will testify to the fact that the statement "many scientists begin to believe in God when they see how complex life really is" is utter bullshit. Just because you took one biology class in high school and had a misguided epiphany doesn't give you a right to generalize about the professional scientific community.
mcclxix 3 years ago 2
The fact remains that there ARE scientists whom are brought to question Darwinian evolution. I'm sure 'many' is an overstatement though and you've got me there. Francis Collins, leader of Human Genome Project, is a prominent example. In his book, The Language of God, he rejects creationism and intelligent design but goes on to argue that evolution and God are not mutually exclusive. It seems as though you are generalizing as well, unless you propose Collins is full of "utter bullshit".
runningbull3 3 years ago
You misread my statement; I never said the two were mutually exclusive. But suggesting that significant numbers of scientists often become born-agains because of their research is just obnoxious, and that's what you did. And I don't propose Francis Collins is full of utter bullshit, I just propose you are. There are plenty of religious scientists, many of whom I know personally, but it's not the science that inspires them to faith, and that's the only counterpoint I am making.
mcclxix 3 years ago
hmmm my friend "laws of physics are man made" if you ever jump off a cliff and fall to your death on the way ask yourself what bastard invented gravity! man OBSERVES the physical world around him, and translates the view into the lanuage of mathematics, the laws of physics can not be created or changed. if you dont understand that explination you really need to read some books, and no the bible dosent count!!!!
chansefyffe 3 years ago
that is not what i meant. what i mean is that it's possible that it could be something else such as a work of god, but some guy could of made some random work for it, and god shows nothing to prove that its him because as i said, he makes earth what we think of it. i dont really care if you disagree with me because we both have different opinions. i appreciate the comment though
Ihatederick123 3 years ago
VERY unlikely no matter how long the earth has been around. The systems are too complex. There must be a driving force, just as there are driving forces behind evolution. It is stupid to come to the simplest conclusion when we cant find a scientific answer, but I think we will never know what the driving forces were behind chemical evolution. So then will the existence of a creator be an acceptable hypothesis, or will we sadly continue to deny Him in hopes that we can prove He does not exist?
scottymroth 4 years ago
Another confusion for me about the theory of evolution is how the first self replicating molecule came about. To me evolution makes no sense when applied to molecules. They are not competing for resources. There is no molecule that is more fit than another. To me evolution makes sense for living reproducing things, but what was the driving force of the production of self replicating molecules? Random chance?
scottymroth 4 years ago
Life is a controlled reaction. More complex reactions are able to utilize energy unused by simpler reactions. Consider the comparative metabolisms of humans and yeast cells. Humans are able to crank out much more energy with a much more complex and specific reaction. If a reaction creates more energy it can continue for longer before dieing out.
JagKhan 3 years ago 2
Oh and scottymroth, I share your problem about trial and error in nature as well. "Trial and error" is a common misconception of the forces in evolution. Trial and Error indicates a direction, or a goal in mind, which nature/evolution does not have. Indeed a trial would have to have an initiating force. Nature evolves by random changes in environmental pressures. Adaptations are not intentional, mutations by random chance or a genenetic bottle kneck that results in allele frequency change.
monnetti 4 years ago
It's not a great movie, but it has an interesting and poignant quotation. "1000 years ago, everyone knew the earth was the center of the Universe. 500 years ago, everyone knew the earth was flat. 15 minutes ago you knew people were alone on this planet (not pertinent). Imagine what we will know tomorrow." - K from Men in Black.
The alien part is not important, I know, but it raises a significant point. Science doesn't have all the answers, but GOD is not science, and is not its opposite.
monnetti 4 years ago
I can understand that not everyone has the resources or tme to become educated on evoluton, genetics, chemistry, and population biology. But what I will never understand is the illogical conclusion that just because one doesn't know the answer to a question about our past, one assumes the existence of a supernatural being. Could it be that we don't the answer YET, but that we will soon and the solution is NOT a supernatural being? Isn't that just as likely?
monnetti 4 years ago 2
The system above works based on these universal laws. It is why, it is how. gravity has always been. A negative charge will always be attracted to a positive charge, it is this way now and it always has been. These properties (and many others) are why replication works, AND they are why the system developed. Replication is a highly evolved, refined process. What was once as simple as one nucleotide base joining and forming an identical nucleotide and then releasing it, has become so complex.
monnetti 4 years ago
It's not simply saying why it works, it is why/how it works. Ever heard of uniformitarianism? It says that the same processes that affect the present, affected the past, and gradually. I won't go into the proofs of why this is so, but this concept is one of the few ways that scientists can know anything about the past. There are physical laws that govern the universe: gravity (essentially a mass interaction), motion, laws of optics, etc...
monnetti 4 years ago
Also i have a problem with the claim that nature has a trial and error system. We all know that a trial has to come from somewhere or something and that trials have to have some sort of direction to them. If Nature is just nature, like you all claim, then how does it make trials? There is no reasonable explanation, other than a supernatural being, as to how or why the first macromolecules formed and later learned to copy themselves. No other molecules in nature copy themselves.
scottymroth 4 years ago
Monnetti's response that "the proteins have specific interactions that govern where to cut, fuse, build etc." is like simplifying a complex computer system to.. "well all it is is a specific directed flow of electrons, they dont have a mind of their own." well what is that statement supposed to tell you? It says nothing. All it does is explain why the system works. The question we are trying to answer her is how the system came about.
scottymroth 4 years ago
amazing
cybergurlz86 4 years ago
On a ligher note, this is a very beautiful model. It's hard to believe that the actual process is exponentially faster. Was this created by Harvard, I read somewhere that it was? Anyone know?
monnetti 4 years ago
As miraculous and beautiful as this process is, it is still not perfect. GOD believers: why would HE/SHE make something that isn't perfect? Our eyes are often used as examples for creationism or intelligent design. Why then, do Cephalopods have more efficient eyes than we do? Evolution has no direction, and no greater plan, the organisms that are best equipped to reproduce will do so at a greater rate. This will change how future organisms are, replication is essential to this.
monnetti 4 years ago
That statistic does not support the existence of a higher power, those that deduce that have tunnel vision and can only see the final product. The mechanism should be efficient and accurate after millions of years of evolution. Proteins (coded for by genes) that are not accurate will result in organisms that cannot reproduce, thus their genes become relics. Over time the process is streamlined; only the most efficient genes are left, as the less fit genes are excised.
monnetti 4 years ago
GOD: The only logical explanation for those who lack the encompassing knowledge to execute proper logic. The video above is amazing. Think of this statistic, if our cells had an error rate of 1 in 1 million (that is 1 error out of every 1 million base pairs) then there would still be 3000 mistakes every time our DNA was replicated. An organism would die very quckly as those errors accumulated. Our replication mechanism is extraordinarily accurate and efficient.
monnetti 4 years ago
Well i dont really understand it.. nor will i pretend to. all i know is that its AMAZING!
Snivellinlittleshitt 4 years ago
wow!!!!it's so gre8 to watch...it
thanks fo the upload
leesolee 4 years ago
What I find interesting is that they show helicase and DNA polymerase III as one subunit.. . I must have missed that in bio class...
jaykia 4 years ago
So amazing. To see this, it blows your mind and yet you know that even this video simplifies it 100 fold. In truth, you could never see what really happens because a haze of random molecules would be buzzing around lol.
jaykia 4 years ago
Best replication movie ever (molecular biology student)
Marwansl 4 years ago
looks like how ammo is loaded into the m60 but backwards, helps me to understand
nubahone 4 years ago
Hello.
I know i sound like a dumbass, but what's the song for this called?
~an orch dork
edabooh93 4 years ago
It would be watched by science classes all over the world. With this inspiring music and no words, it would be able to be seen around the world in any language. -Elliot Harrison
Elliotman07 4 years ago
This kind of thing would make an excellent movie. A full length film with no words, just all animation of the complex inner-workings of what goes on in your body at any given moment; starting with DNA replication, and moving through mitosis, and so on then flipping to sperm reproduction and sexual reproduction and cild birth, maby some HIV comes into play or something. It would be the major motion picture of the century. A movie to educate the public about the complexity of the human body.
Elliotman07 4 years ago 4
That would be so awesome, especially if it was in this style.
chucknorris51 4 years ago
That's a very unique idea
itsanthonyhere 4 years ago
Information has to be given by a conscious source e.g. you can't scramble up all the letters in a newspaper and expect them to return to the original understandable form! because it won't! and it needed a conscious mind (us) to rearrange them into the right order
terencechung122 4 years ago
That's assuming there's such a thing as a "right" order. You are right that we need a conscious mind to interpret raw data as being "information"--a concept we construct with our minds. Ice crystals grow into fascinating patterns on a cold window pane, but they are being arranged in that way because of the mathematical properties of their atomic structure.
TheMathGuy 4 years ago
These proteins and DNA sequences are all arrange in a particular and precise way that the 3D folded structure that comes from a 2D information can give so much functions.
SO who give them the information to form these precise 3D structure when there were simply swimming in an endless "sea of organic molecules"??
terencechung122 4 years ago
No one had to give them anything. Its simply the mechanics of their being
Ramboticanastna 4 years ago
One thing I'm curious about: What kind of computer was used for this simulation? Do you know who wrote the software and what they were running it on?
TheMathGuy 4 years ago
Great video:)
Daranius 4 years ago
Also, biologists use enzymes as tools to do the work they do, how else could it be done? We don't yet posses the technological capability to reproduce all that nature can.
buddhistcamel 4 years ago
Mezon, enzymes are complex molecules that are able to do what they do via numerous chemical interactions.
You expect a biologist to replicate DNA with what...his bare hands? As a biologist has enzymes as part of his genetic make-up he is replicating DNA all the time within himself, just as you or I are; so indirectly he can replicate DNA.
buddhistcamel 4 years ago
How can the unconscious, fatuous, mindless enzymes know to replicate DNA?
İf a biologist try to replicate DNA, he can't do that...But enzymes can do...
In that case, the enzymes only gloves of God, and He asks a question....
Who makes those works?
MezonQuant 4 years ago
What's with the 'creationism' malarkey on here? The only one dumber than a creationist is an Intelligent Design believer. Utter idiocy.
loonmaniac 4 years ago
Is there supposed to be two seperate strands of DNA after transcription? if so, this would result if two stands containing the same Genetic intron codings of Dna material as replaced by RNA
CodenameLegacy 4 years ago
To see such proteins move as if they're alive...wow..life is amazing, even down to the most basic level.
ziderazzi 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes