@eheffelf The other colored enzymes are most probably single-strand binding protein (stabilizes the unwound DNA;light blue), DNA polymerase 3 (adds DNA fragments; green), DNA ligase (also green), DNA polymerase 1, RNA primase (violet), i'm not sure of the others
I understand that the blue is helicase, but what are the other colored machines? That's what I'm really interested in. If anyone could help me out on understanding that, it would be much appreciated.
@eheffelf Helicase is the dark blue. The green ones are DNA polymerase III. I believe the dark purple ones are RNA primase. Can't make out where the ligase or DNA polymerase I is.
@optimusprime2217 So is it that crystals forms into a special pattern as they freeze etc. Its no miracle its the laws of nature at play. There are crystals which "self-replicate"
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
@Darkfoxx999 No, they're not that; tRNA doesnt pair the DNA, it pairs the mRNA codons in the ribosome. I think they're the exonucleases which are proofreading the base-pairing right after the DNA P III or the ligases.
When the narrator says "and the result is two new DNA molecules" does she mean two new strands? Because how would it be copying the DNA strand if it's new or essentially being produced in the same process?
@jennifervision It's difficult to explain in 400 characters, but here it goes. DNA is replicated in a 5'-->3' direction. The Lagging Strand (**Okazaki fragments**) is given DNA in a way that would have it replicate in a 3'-->5' direction. This doesn't work. So it gives single stranded DNA some slack without replicating (the extra thin, single stranded DNA (ssDNA)). The DNA Polymerase III subunit then attaches as far back on the 5' end of the ssDNA as it can and starts replicating 5'-->3'.
@nigelsenchez yes, but where did this come from? Science proves nothing to this or anything else in origin. God created it period. A brilliant Being outside of space and time who deserves our worship. Don't be foolish and claim that belief in a Creator is myth. What you believe is the same, you just call God, chance.
If someone doesn't value evidence then what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it. If someone doesn't value logic what logical argument can you provide to show the importance of science.
#5. Scientists are good preachers, missionaries, and evangelists. The scientific community is as diverse and dysfunctional as any religious denomination. There is orthodoxy and heresy, doctrine and practise, worship and philosophy. There is the call to belief and faith and warnings against doubt and deception. The enemy is real and must be defeated. All this emotional, energetic communication from dedicated secular scientists who believe that life is meaningless, that death wins in the end.
@fasterpastor1000 Wait, what? ". The scientific community is as diverse and dysfunctional as any religious denomination" and "there is worship and philosophy"? Really? I mean really? Challenge: name 3 fields within the scientific community that do not agree on at least the basic level with eachother.
#4. If scientists can copy some of the basic processes of life will it give further support to the conviction that no intelligence was needed in the beginning. Does anyone in the scientific community have a laboratory method for replicating a thousand step section of DNA that does not require someone with a PhD or a whole team of specialists and something more than a garage laboratory? Isn’t it possible that scientists give some evidence of intelligence.
#3. How complex would a living organism be if it were designed by an intelligent creator, compared to living organisms we find on earth? What would be the differences between what we see here and a designer life form? Are there any scientists who have modified or improved on the chemistry and structure of a living organism? Are there any better systems of information storage, duplication and usage being developed that could replace DNA?
#2.We can’t see the full picture but we have already made a judgment call, a decision that in spite of the known complexity and in spite of any higher levels of complexity we may find in the future, life in every scientific aspect is simply an accident. It has taken all our scientific intelligence to conclude that no intelligence was in any way, shape or form required for life to begin. What further level of complexity in living cells would be accepted as evidence for an intelligent designer?
#1. It has taken the accumulated intelligence of centuries of scientific research to reach the present day understanding of cellular chemistry. There is still a great deal to be discovered. How do we measure the percentage of scientific knowledge compared to the unknown when we are still on the journey of discovery? We still don’t know the level of complexity of living cells.
@Npowell01 our predecessors were similar in intelligence to us, but we outcompeted them for resources, the earliest of our predecessors we did not kill off are apes, the second most intelligent species.
billions and billions of complex mechanisms and this random energy that was present from where? why is light, why is gravity so conveniently present which is a necessity of life. why does light somehow create an image in our brain. did this just evolve by random chance or did a supreme designer create/organize all the elements of life to evolve and work out in such a miraculously complex way. for those who dont believe in god, where did that big bang ball come from? anyone?
@jhazlem The answer is that the complex systems we have today were once VERY simple. What used to be a primordial soup of simple amino acids, (we find these all over the universe) gradually became more complex. Starting with hydrogen, then combining to form more complex molecules, then the molecules combine through chemical reactions to form even more complex ones (the soup). Over billions of years, on a billion planets, one planet (as far as we know) produced self-replicating molecules. Voila
yeah you just explained evolution dumbass, i know how evolution happened. but why so conveniently did everything work out unfucking believably perfect, where did charge come from, or gravity, or light, or sound, or matter altogether. where did this super dense ball of matter some from from the "big bang" why did it explode. how do enzymes know how to repair DNA after it gets fucked up in replication, why are humans so much smarter than every other organism?
Just because we can't answer these questions now doesn't mean we won't be able to answer these questions later. For now, the answer is "we aren't sure." Why? Because that's honest. Inserting God wherever there is a lack of knowledge is merely putting false hope in your own ignorance. You might be setting yourself up for disappointment.
did you not read what i said, i know that we scientifically know a lot of stuff, and we also don't know a lot of stuff. i didn't say anything about that situation showing theres a god or not. i'm just saying how life is so complex and yes, evolution is fact. my belief is god created matter, he created all elements and made them have the chemical properties they do to react with eachother and after eons evolve into complex as fuck life. where did the "big bang" matter come from?
also, why are humans so much smarter than every other organism, its not even close. it seems like with all the millions of organisms, there would be at least a couple at the top of the intelligence list that we at least somewhat close in intelligence to another species. seems very unlikely unless it was meant to be
and also, my brother saw a girl who was possessed, climb up a huge tree at superhuman speeds, and had fully black pupils and didn't respond to anything, and then after minutes of hoping she would return to normal, it stopped, and this girl didn't remember what happened. i've also had two uncles who saw the one's mother in law who had been dead for years watching her daughters wedding and then disappear after it was over. i'm just saying, i know theres something more to life
@jhazlem Nobody says life is 'random' except creationists This is because they don't understand it (or more correctly, they don't want to understand it). If you found that explanation too simple, then go and study biology at university for four years and make up your own mind.
i have studied biology and chemistry and organic chemistry and biochemistry, physiology. this is why i know how fuckin complex life is. i'm just saying that life is too complex to just be how it is because a super dense ball of matter exploded somehow, and because the ball of matter was there containing every bit of matter in the universe with all the elements which would somehow create life through beyond trillions of processes that make life today necessary
evolution is fact, but does this really just happen by random chance? did THIS really just evolve from "the big bang" to me this one process out of billions other unbelievably complex mechanisms just shows that there is some sort of designer of life, or "god" people associate evolution with there being no god. where did that super dense ball from the big bang come from? why are humans so much smarter than every other species? how has everything worked out so perfectly? by random chance of
I was just wondering... What is that cross-like light blue protein that holds all the enzymes together in place? Funny to know that this is very unlike textbooks where the enzymes show up individually and start doing their own thing...
@wrewlf99 That's actually the core subunits of the DNA Polymerase holoenzyme. The circles around the two new strands are the Beta-clamp and clamp-loader. The circle around the parent strands is DNA helicase, separating the two strands.
@msc0328 Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins. All amino acids in proteins are 'LEFT-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'RIGHT-handed'. Chirality!
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!!. Which life can't use!! Its what we see in nature and in labs!
Life never came about by time chance natural processes! IMPOSSIBLE!!!
@wrewlf99 i believe that the light blue structure holding on to the DNAP + helicase is part of the core....it consists of the clamp loader that loads sliding clamps behind the DNAP and the Tau proteins that help hold on to the helicase+ individual DNAP III....at least that's what i get going by Watson' molecular biology of the gene 6th edition
@wrewlf99 The DNA polymerase dimer is held together with a protein complex including tau-proteins (the arms that connect to the DNA pols) and the clamp loader. The clamp loader reaches up behind the helicase so that a new clamp can grab onto a new DNA-RNA primer complex. When the lagging strand DNA polymerase is done synthesizing an Okazaki fragment, it dissociates from the DNA and interacts with the clamp loader to associate with a new clamp and to begin synthesis again using the primer.
nice video, but i miss some factors like Topoismerases .
Really funny that there really exist people who denied the evolution, Since know I thought it is unbeliefebale that such stupid people exist, maybe there found a time machine 1000 years ago.
BTW thank you for your responses.Research on various anatomical features of Archaeopteryx in the last ten years or so, however, has shown, in EVERY CASE, that the characteristic in question is bird-like, not reptile-like. And I don't want to be a n ass by spamming your channel with them but they are available.
@MayonR You're missing the point. Of course archeopteryx is more bird or reptile like - are you demanding a PERFECT mix of every characteristic? Not only would that classification be subjective, but if the head is more like a bird, but the tail-bone is more like a reptile, how would you qualitatively declare that the bird-part is more significant than the tail-part - simply because you look at heads to distinguish things? hardly. Your points are non-sequiters from your original claims.
@msc0328 This is by the evolutionary camps standards. "We are not even authorized to consider the exceptional case of archaeopteryx as a true link. By link, we mean a necessary stage of transition between classes such as reptiles and birds, or between smaller groups. An animal displaying characteristics belonging to two different groups cannot be treated as a true link as long as the intermediary stages have not been found, and as long as the mechanisms of transition remain unknown."Pierre Nouy
@MayonR I'm not sure what your intent is. You only talk about archeopteryx. There are many other transitional forms for tetrapods, fish, bats, whales, humans, and other higher order metazoans. That quote by Pierre Nouy is referring to archeopteryx as a link with extant species; but it is consensus that archeopteryx is a transitional form, even if it is of extinct species. Again, you point/quote is a non-sequitur from your original argument, "transitional stages are assumed"
@msc0328[[ You only talk about archeopteryx.]] Not that I mind, but I didn't bring it up. I can spam away which might appear rude so I don't try to beat a dead horse but respectfully engage with anything relevant to our current discussion. Hope it remains interesting.Pierre also mentioned no stages demonstrated between classes. I've provided standards that evolutionists or simply science requires to come to a conclusion that is certain. I don't think your asserting we should lower the standards.
@MayonR It's not interesting if it's not a supporting argument for your main point. Your point was about any/all transitional forms. Your later points only discuss the niceties for the scientific classification for archeopteryx and whether it is a true link to EXTANT species. It remains an intermediate form by definition, and none of this disturbs the CLEAR TRANSITIONAL FORMS FOR TETRAPODS, FISH, BATS, WHALES, HUMANS, etc.
@msc0328 [[It's not interesting]] oh thanks.[[Your point was about any/all transitional forms.]] And our Archaeopteryx conversation is encompassed in that, I'll let you drive, no prob.Your channel.(love the vid).[[It remains an intermediate form]] You and me know that consensus doesn't determine science, maybe scientism, but not true science.
@MayonR Consensus is a driving force of science. Science is not a constant result - is a constant process. The answers can change, based on consensus.
@msc0328 Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method. Though consensus may be based on it.
And Henry Ge wrote in Nature "To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story -- amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific."
@MayonR Your lack of understanding in this subject is apparent now. Your original point was that transitional forms do not exist - but they do; of course Archeopteryx may or may not be in the direct line of modern birds - but Archeopteryx represents a proof of principle that transitional forms DID and DO exist, confirming the notion that there IS a line for every species. Demanding that we have EVERY transitional form for EVERY species to prove evolution is not how this works.
@msc0328 It's not my understanding, but am providing the understanding of science. Even Archeopteryx rides on lots of assumption. From the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology [2(4):439(1983)]. "Benton states that the quadrate in Archaeopteryx was singleheaded as in reptiles. Using computed tomography, Haubitz,, established that the quadrate o Archaepoteryx was double-headed and thus similar to the condition of modern birds,7 rather than single-headed, as stated by Benton."
According to evolutionary journal Nature "both sides in the current controversy over bird origins agree that modern birds are probably not descended from Archaeopteryx......Their critics look to animals that clearly lived earlier, but have not yet found one similar enough to Archaeopteryx to be a good candidate. As a result, both sides are still looking for the missing link."
So the transitional stages are assumed as even wikipedia will not claim it is absolute proof. If you organize books on the assumptions of evolution you will organize them from smallest to biggest. Then we open them up and we look at the dates and find it is wrong based on our assumptions.
@msc0328 [[Wikipedia is not the authority on this process.]] Only mentioned it because I was refered there a few comments back and noticed it's disclaimer. Even the transitional stages cannot be demonstrated and are heavily assumed. But more diverse creatures have been found to exist before the time of the KT boundary which were bigger animals of all kinds than today when they should have been smaller and simpler.
@MayonR [[Even the transitional stages cannot be demonstrated and are heavily assumed.]] How are you claiming this? From Tiktaalik, to Archeopteryx, to Ambulocetus ... there are many more. And the KT boundary is not the defining point for complex body forms - that would be the pre-cambrian explosion; and you would *expect* to see more diverse creatures *before* an extinction event. This supporting point is a non-sequiter.
OMG! stop it already....... dont go on and on bout ID.... there has been enough proof about evolution and other theories.... if you fail to see light in these arguments, well.... guess you're the king of idiocracy..... and WHO DA HELL IN THIS WORLD DISLIKED THIS VID?????
@baba23993 [[there has been enough proof about evolution and other theories]] Proof has not been presented. Evidence is different than proof. There is tremendous evidence of a Creator as well as evolution. The day we can positively show a change between one species to another or if a human is born with wings that allow flight than it probably will be considered proof.
god that is absolutely beautiful. everyone stop fighting, and thinking about how this is happening TRILLIONS of times, RIGHT NOW all throughout your body. amazing.
@iansquared3 Not only your body but every single living thing on the planet. Including plants and bacteria (granted bacteria dna is a loop not a helix and the specific enzymes are technically different BUT BASICALLY)
If it looks like it was designed, acts like it was designed, reacts like it was designed. Voila, It's evolution!!! How brilliant!!
There needs be an intelligent designer in order for the complex information within DNA to exist. The complex information cannot happen by chance. This video shows the intelligence is within the design itself. What I want to know is who or what first compiled all the enormous amounts of information into the billions of different micro biological systems?
@KrisMayeaux "If it looks like the sun revolves around the earth, acts like it revolves around the earth. Voila, the earth revolves around the sun!!! How brilliant!!!"
Your kind have been disputing proven science since the dark ages. Actually: they never left the dark ages. Just as you now accept that the earth is round and revolves around the sun, your descendants will accept the indisputable truth of evolution. It takes a couple of centuries for idiocy to die out.
@prescod [[Just as you now accept that the earth is round and revolves around the sun, your descendants will accept the indisputable truth of evolution.]] You are supposing that an educated top league scholar cannot surmise from the evidence laid out, that a Creator is the most logical assumption. In fact there are numerous Atheistic/Evolutionary scientist that were forced to conclude a Creator based on their research, such as Walter J. Veith. Don't assume lack of knowledge because of a belief.
@MayonR You're right that lack of knowledge is not the problem. A strong wish to ignore the information is the problem. I'm just saying that your descendants will give up the fight once they've lost, just as your ancestors did about geocentrism. Or, to be more accurate, just as there are now only a handful of geocentrists in the world now, there will be only a handful of young earth creationists in 200 years. You're just really frigging annoying in the meantime.
@KrisMayeaux "There needs be an intelligent designer in order for the complex information within DNA to exist. The complex information cannot happen by chance."
Nobody said it happened by chance. That's a strawman argument. Go back to elementary school and ask your science teacher about natural selection.
@prescod [[Nobody said it happened by chance. That's a strawman argument. Go back to elementary school and ask your science teacher about natural selection.]] Natural selection demonstrates the process of adaptation. It doesn't prove macro evolution which is the change from one species to another. Intel ID'ers and evolutionists agree on natural selection. The argument is about the change of species which has never been observed and transitional species fossils cannot be shown.
@prescod I'm sure you have seen the problems and the assumptions that arise in transitional fossil as an indisputable explanation. One is that the supposed primitive characteristic such as bony scales that gave rise to more complex scales still exist. And the opposite also exists. Complex animals that were arisen from primitive existed with primitive fossils.This is shown when sequencing 18s ribosomal RNA from various species which suggests that many of the phyla appeared simultaneously.
@MayonR Bony scales still existing is not a problem with the theory. It is completely consistent with the theory of evolution. I'm not familiar with any new pseudo-science linking 18s RNA to creationism. Please provide a citation in whatever format YouTube will support.
@prescod Sorry momentarily gone..older textbooks have proclaimed that Chordatas(our phylum) didn't appear till the Ordovician period but the Burgess Shale contains a chordate in the Cambrian period where only primitave fossils are supposed to be. Complex existed with primitive and supposed transitional exist today such as the coelacanth.
me and my friends did a science video on DNA as a project and we used this video! our video tht we made is called chanel 7 news DNA plz check it out!!
There are tons of useless relics in our DNA. Half of it is just repeated sequences that code for nothing (transposons). Another good portion of it is non repeated sequences that also do not result in any proteins (introns). You're left with less than 4% of our DNA that actually codes for proteins.
-Mol. Bio of Cell 5/e Garland Science 2008 fig 4-17
Take a look at our mitochondria for more evidence of evolution; it has it's own separate CIRCULAR DNA, just like bacteria. Evolution is obvious.
The light blue part (the one that flexes around to grab the DNA strand) is called the tau subunit. It attaches the alpha polymerase subunits, the ones that make the DNA, to the core of the superstructure. The alpha subunits would just fall off the superstructure every time they reach the next primer if there was no tau subunit to attach them..
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.
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.
it is really strange to see you debating about ID vs. evolution (in some way or another); for most people outside the US this is totally incomprehensible. it's just evolution.
@meslud I agree that it's pretty ridiculous that this even has to be debated. The sadder part is this: if we do not debate or challenge them, their nonsense goes unopposed and is seen by other religious fundamentalists as a victory and correct answer. Therefore, speak up when you hear this sort of nonsense coming out of other peoples' mouths.
@bonvea Well, the same polymerase is used on the lagging strand .. if you watch the video, you'll see that it's constantly letting go and then reattaching at another point. On the leading strand it just stays on, but on the lagging strand, it keeps being kicked off ... so you'll see the clamp come in and attach it back to a new primer to start again ... does that make sense?
@msc0328 ohh i think i was looking at the turquoise portion (what is that by the way?) so the DNA polymerase is the one that pulls the lagging strand away from the central part?
@bonvea The turquoise portion is the clamp... the polymerase is purple... the clamp loader is the light purple or lavendar ... the clamp and polymerase hit an already sysnthesized okazaki fragment and the clamp falls off - back on the main holoenzyme, the clamp loader grabs the single-stranded DNA with a new clamp, and then the purple polymerase associates with the new clamp and starts synthesizing until it runs into the next okazaki fragment, when the clamp falls off again... make sense?
@jebitesepichke DNA ligase is not shown here. The clamp loader is not the RNA primase, but the green bit that comes and goes. And none of this is polymerase I - this is showing polymerase III in E. coli, the main enzyme required for replication. although polymerase I does not appear, it is the most versatile of the 3 E. coli polymerases with extra proof-reading capabilities.
@msc0328 It is not known fully if clamp and polymerase core subunits are immediately recycled, which is what is shown in the animation. Pol III subunits are produced at a very low number suggesting they are required to be recycled on the lagging strand. Old and new subunits are most likely interchangeably incorporated randomly on the lagging strand.
Not defending ID here, but if this replication process evolved, wouldn't it had to have gone through a number of intermediate states on the way to this? And shouldn't the biome on the earth thus be littered with inferior DNA-replicating mechanism the same way it is littered with inferior eyes, inferior hands/paws, etc.?
@lectrick you are correct that there were a number of intermediate stages. However, we would not expect the biome to be littered with primitive replicating mechanisms because once one mechanisms is successful, it can outcompete all of the others and is passed on to the next prosperous generation. Each improvement will outcompete the last generation's slower methods. The only places to find these primitive processes is in extreme environments where competition is much less.
@lectrick that's an interesting thought that other scientists have written about - the consensus answer is, "no, we would not find inferior replicating mechanisms" because unlike fossils, molecules don't stay around, and DNA replication is clearly outcompeting everything else. And other scientists would respond that we *do* see other mechanisms around us - take viruses for example, champions of evolution, and they use RNA for their genomes sometimes ... that's sort of like a fossil
@msc0328 Also important to note that this evolved in single-celled organisms when life was first starting out on this planet, and all other multicellular life is just an extension of that core concept. The reason all cellular life shares these characteristics is precisely because it evolved from one successful organism.
I agree about the virus and they do last longer, pretty interesting stuff, perhaps the answer may lay there after all they haven't been studied that much
@lectrick maybe because this is the bare minimum requirement of life, it hasn't evolved yet with the exclusion of "new life" like blue-green algae and certain forms of rare jellyfish, and the recent microbes that are comprised of arsenic. anyway they have more efficient systems and suffer far less DNA degradation, the primary cause of aging, in contrast humans live appx. 80 yrs while some of these creatures can live 400+ under the right conditions.
Not defending ID here, but if this replication process evolved, wouldn't it had to have gone through a number of intermediate states on the way to this? And shouldn't the biome on the earth thus be littered with inferior DNA-replicating mechanism the same way it is littered with inferior eyes, inferior hands/paws, etc.?
this confused me more
maryamiscoolz 1 day ago
i could not understand DNA please tell me about it or share me some videos which can teach me perfectly.
thanks
abrehman49 3 days ago
Complicated :/
9797weezy 3 days ago
Ahh so nice a video like this. Follow the Okazaki Fragments!
nejiastig 1 week ago
Mashallah
ahmed606060 1 week ago
I've always wanted to see stuff like this in action. I then when you do, you don't even know wtf you're looking at :S
ToTheBookStand 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@eheffelf The other colored enzymes are most probably single-strand binding protein (stabilizes the unwound DNA;light blue), DNA polymerase 3 (adds DNA fragments; green), DNA ligase (also green), DNA polymerase 1, RNA primase (violet), i'm not sure of the others
flint9217 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
flint9217 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
flint9217 2 weeks ago
I understand that the blue is helicase, but what are the other colored machines? That's what I'm really interested in. If anyone could help me out on understanding that, it would be much appreciated.
eheffelf 2 weeks ago
@eheffelf Helicase is the dark blue. The green ones are DNA polymerase III. I believe the dark purple ones are RNA primase. Can't make out where the ligase or DNA polymerase I is.
nejiastig 1 week ago
it seems pretty hard to believe this just came out of chance.
optimusprime2217 3 weeks ago
@optimusprime2217 So is it that crystals forms into a special pattern as they freeze etc. Its no miracle its the laws of nature at play. There are crystals which "self-replicate"
MjolnerBane 3 weeks ago
@optimusprime2217
It's not chance, it's evolution by natural selection.
vivalaandrew16 2 weeks ago
really not that helpful if you're trying to study for the test itself.
inad20120240 3 weeks ago
good
ooTukkyoboboo 1 month ago
Comment removed
wainblatrobert 1 month ago
How things evolved into this from primordial goo you ask ? ==(''') ALIENS (''')===
wainblatrobert 1 month ago
I never fully understood how the lagging strand happened... until now O.O
muriaal 1 month ago
what are the "building blocks" for the new DNA?
siggidan89 1 month ago
Is anyone else studying last minute for the Bio 206 exam? UTM Represent!
muzzammil9 1 month ago
I used to research molecular biology like you, but then I took an arrow to the knee.
Beverkake 1 month ago
I dont know shit about biology, but watching this while high made me realize I might be made of nanomachines.
Javo1087 2 months ago
If this doesn't blow your goddamn mind, there's something wrong with you.
Grak70 2 months ago 4
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
@Franzisification
Those add the RNA primers I think, you can see them attaching to the lagging end just before the primase begins it's work.
DreadTroglodyte 1 month ago
@Franzisification The "green things are transfer RNA or tRNA that carry anti-codons to attach to the strand of RNA
Darkfoxx999 1 month ago
@Darkfoxx999 No, they're not that; tRNA doesnt pair the DNA, it pairs the mRNA codons in the ribosome. I think they're the exonucleases which are proofreading the base-pairing right after the DNA P III or the ligases.
dthesq 1 month ago
YO WORD UP TO MY HELICASES AND MY PRIMASES,, YALL IS REAL,, BUT YO FUCK THE LIGASES.. ALWAYS STICKIN SHIT TOGETHER DAMN~~
multipoly210 2 months ago
man, and I thought I understood something about biology -.-
Justas923 2 months ago
37 viruses visited this page
EccentricOnline 2 months ago
like so much
safasweity 3 months ago
amazing what are body can do, we can't see this and its happening i'm amazed, stunned
yadirawc 3 months ago
When the narrator says "and the result is two new DNA molecules" does she mean two new strands? Because how would it be copying the DNA strand if it's new or essentially being produced in the same process?
caketyn 3 months ago
@caketyn The DNA is "split" into 2 single strands. Each of those strands then forms the template for the "new" double helix.
SierraBravoOneNiner 2 months ago
I don't exactly understand what the right side is doing... reforming it there on the spot?
jennifervision 4 months ago
@jennifervision It's difficult to explain in 400 characters, but here it goes. DNA is replicated in a 5'-->3' direction. The Lagging Strand (**Okazaki fragments**) is given DNA in a way that would have it replicate in a 3'-->5' direction. This doesn't work. So it gives single stranded DNA some slack without replicating (the extra thin, single stranded DNA (ssDNA)). The DNA Polymerase III subunit then attaches as far back on the 5' end of the ssDNA as it can and starts replicating 5'-->3'.
fatkidinaspeedo 3 months ago
Freshman taking up Molecular Biology at the Universtiy of the Philippines Diliman. Have a long exam tomorrow and this is included @_@
IkonPhenom 4 months ago
awesome....i show people at work and they dont even care, im flabbergasted
dissturbbed 4 months ago
First time I saw this in class, I totally tripped out.
sorakairi1993 4 months ago 24
I'm gonna keep watching until the end of my studies. T_T =)
AokiAisaka 4 months ago
Fucking AMAZING!!!!! Im wondering if this is close to real time!!
cceessaarr234 4 months ago
@cceessaarr234 Im not positive but i think this is slowed down quite a bit so its easier to see whats happening
if it was happening in real time she would explicitly say so like in the other video of transcription
danielxkim08 4 months ago
@cceessaarr234
Its hard to tell how fast this is going, but most polymerases can do 1000 base pairs in a second.
I agree, amazing!
Elvishswimmer 3 months ago
I. Don't. Comprehend. Too many. Moving. Things. Amazing... yet so ... o_e
-Crashes on the floor later to be hit with Biology book-
EUREKA!!! .... I need more oreos... T_T
OrusaiiZentuAkuu 5 months ago
35 people dislike correctly functioning molecular biology....
JackHanley123 5 months ago 55
@JackHanley123
haters gonna hate
4795623 1 month ago
@JackHanley123 Purge the mutants!!!
Lamefoureyes 1 month ago
it's so difficult :O
cheesenutpea 5 months ago
FUCKING SMART!
GiefGoldPlx 5 months ago
This animation is missing the Polymerase I replacing the RNA primer put down by the molecule immediately behind Helicase.
Keinlicht 6 months ago
Out grow the myth that the universe cares about us, that it was designed for us in mind, that it is all about you and me. It is not. Look at the
beauty of science instead, think about the consolations of philosophy,
the glories of literature. Get a life, Get off your knees, and stop
groveling and stop waling.
nigelsenchez 7 months ago 2
@nigelsenchez yes, but where did this come from? Science proves nothing to this or anything else in origin. God created it period. A brilliant Being outside of space and time who deserves our worship. Don't be foolish and claim that belief in a Creator is myth. What you believe is the same, you just call God, chance.
rthco 5 months ago
@rthco
If someone doesn't value evidence then what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it. If someone doesn't value logic what logical argument can you provide to show the importance of science.
All we can do is appeal to scientific values.
nigelsenchez 5 months ago
@rthco believing in god is caca
Riggro 2 months ago
#5. Scientists are good preachers, missionaries, and evangelists. The scientific community is as diverse and dysfunctional as any religious denomination. There is orthodoxy and heresy, doctrine and practise, worship and philosophy. There is the call to belief and faith and warnings against doubt and deception. The enemy is real and must be defeated. All this emotional, energetic communication from dedicated secular scientists who believe that life is meaningless, that death wins in the end.
fasterpastor1000 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fasterpastor1000 Wait, what? ". The scientific community is as diverse and dysfunctional as any religious denomination" and "there is worship and philosophy"? Really? I mean really? Challenge: name 3 fields within the scientific community that do not agree on at least the basic level with eachother.
bboyCrazyLegs 6 months ago
#4. If scientists can copy some of the basic processes of life will it give further support to the conviction that no intelligence was needed in the beginning. Does anyone in the scientific community have a laboratory method for replicating a thousand step section of DNA that does not require someone with a PhD or a whole team of specialists and something more than a garage laboratory? Isn’t it possible that scientists give some evidence of intelligence.
fasterpastor1000 7 months ago
#3. How complex would a living organism be if it were designed by an intelligent creator, compared to living organisms we find on earth? What would be the differences between what we see here and a designer life form? Are there any scientists who have modified or improved on the chemistry and structure of a living organism? Are there any better systems of information storage, duplication and usage being developed that could replace DNA?
fasterpastor1000 7 months ago
#2.We can’t see the full picture but we have already made a judgment call, a decision that in spite of the known complexity and in spite of any higher levels of complexity we may find in the future, life in every scientific aspect is simply an accident. It has taken all our scientific intelligence to conclude that no intelligence was in any way, shape or form required for life to begin. What further level of complexity in living cells would be accepted as evidence for an intelligent designer?
fasterpastor1000 7 months ago
#1. It has taken the accumulated intelligence of centuries of scientific research to reach the present day understanding of cellular chemistry. There is still a great deal to be discovered. How do we measure the percentage of scientific knowledge compared to the unknown when we are still on the journey of discovery? We still don’t know the level of complexity of living cells.
fasterpastor1000 7 months ago
@Npowell01 our predecessors were similar in intelligence to us, but we outcompeted them for resources, the earliest of our predecessors we did not kill off are apes, the second most intelligent species.
dragonmirado 7 months ago
Im spanish and I dont undestand anything xD Can anyone tel me if its DNA polymerase III? Graciaaas =3
ProduccionesPulaSA 8 months ago
this animation is amazing
Mspamplemousse1 8 months ago
This is only the scheme for bacterial replication right? The eucaryotic scheme has no dimerized DNA polymerase if i remember correctly..
SweA31 9 months ago
Christians: Fucking magnets, how do they work?!
ForbiddianSC 9 months ago
@ForbiddianSC don't you mean mormons?
Bootyhunterzx 9 months ago
this video is not very helpful for exam purposes .
Lsivanandan 9 months ago
dont know shit ;)
TheBlackOpsDude01 9 months ago
billions and billions of complex mechanisms and this random energy that was present from where? why is light, why is gravity so conveniently present which is a necessity of life. why does light somehow create an image in our brain. did this just evolve by random chance or did a supreme designer create/organize all the elements of life to evolve and work out in such a miraculously complex way. for those who dont believe in god, where did that big bang ball come from? anyone?
jhazlem 9 months ago
@jhazlem The answer is that the complex systems we have today were once VERY simple. What used to be a primordial soup of simple amino acids, (we find these all over the universe) gradually became more complex. Starting with hydrogen, then combining to form more complex molecules, then the molecules combine through chemical reactions to form even more complex ones (the soup). Over billions of years, on a billion planets, one planet (as far as we know) produced self-replicating molecules. Voila
Rafterman123 8 months ago
@Rafterman123
yeah you just explained evolution dumbass, i know how evolution happened. but why so conveniently did everything work out unfucking believably perfect, where did charge come from, or gravity, or light, or sound, or matter altogether. where did this super dense ball of matter some from from the "big bang" why did it explode. how do enzymes know how to repair DNA after it gets fucked up in replication, why are humans so much smarter than every other organism?
jhazlem 8 months ago
@jhazlem
Just because we can't answer these questions now doesn't mean we won't be able to answer these questions later. For now, the answer is "we aren't sure." Why? Because that's honest. Inserting God wherever there is a lack of knowledge is merely putting false hope in your own ignorance. You might be setting yourself up for disappointment.
Search "The God of the Gaps."
Npowell01 7 months ago
@Npowell01
did you not read what i said, i know that we scientifically know a lot of stuff, and we also don't know a lot of stuff. i didn't say anything about that situation showing theres a god or not. i'm just saying how life is so complex and yes, evolution is fact. my belief is god created matter, he created all elements and made them have the chemical properties they do to react with eachother and after eons evolve into complex as fuck life. where did the "big bang" matter come from?
jhazlem 7 months ago
@Npowell01
also, why are humans so much smarter than every other organism, its not even close. it seems like with all the millions of organisms, there would be at least a couple at the top of the intelligence list that we at least somewhat close in intelligence to another species. seems very unlikely unless it was meant to be
jhazlem 7 months ago
@jhazlem Good question, although I've met some people who were very close in intelligence to some of the animals :)
nomader999 7 months ago
@Rafterman123
and also, my brother saw a girl who was possessed, climb up a huge tree at superhuman speeds, and had fully black pupils and didn't respond to anything, and then after minutes of hoping she would return to normal, it stopped, and this girl didn't remember what happened. i've also had two uncles who saw the one's mother in law who had been dead for years watching her daughters wedding and then disappear after it was over. i'm just saying, i know theres something more to life
jhazlem 8 months ago
@jhazlem
"Anecdotal evidence gathered that people may very well be lying about."
"Subsequent conclusion that there must be more to life than any objective process can explain."
Boy, you sure took some liberties with that explanation.
Npowell01 7 months ago
Comment removed
jhazlem 7 months ago
@jhazlem Nobody says life is 'random' except creationists This is because they don't understand it (or more correctly, they don't want to understand it). If you found that explanation too simple, then go and study biology at university for four years and make up your own mind.
Rafterman123 8 months ago
@Rafterman123
i have studied biology and chemistry and organic chemistry and biochemistry, physiology. this is why i know how fuckin complex life is. i'm just saying that life is too complex to just be how it is because a super dense ball of matter exploded somehow, and because the ball of matter was there containing every bit of matter in the universe with all the elements which would somehow create life through beyond trillions of processes that make life today necessary
jhazlem 8 months ago
evolution is fact, but does this really just happen by random chance? did THIS really just evolve from "the big bang" to me this one process out of billions other unbelievably complex mechanisms just shows that there is some sort of designer of life, or "god" people associate evolution with there being no god. where did that super dense ball from the big bang come from? why are humans so much smarter than every other species? how has everything worked out so perfectly? by random chance of
jhazlem 9 months ago
Discovery's Noah s Ark " the truth story" is attacked by creationist votebots! please help! watch?v=gyq48bTLQ5s&feature=related
dumbnetworks 10 months ago
theres heaps of evidence to suggest evolution does occur:
palaeontology (transitional fosills)
biochemistry
biogeography
comparative anatomy (finches of the galapagos islands)
comparative embryology
but why is all this in the dna replicaton section??
fionaNESS 10 months ago
gorgeous
queserasura 10 months ago
OMG METRIOD PRIME!!
LiamCullins 10 months ago 2
@LiamCullins HAHA! I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought that XD
EdenJAM 10 months ago
dubstep!
borgvarg 10 months ago
Nature's nanomachines.
frogman360 10 months ago
damn nature! you scary!!!
CrazyAd88 11 months ago
@CrazyAd88 If you want some paranoia fuel, it's happening everywhere in your body all the time.
suicune690 10 months ago
@suicune690 AHHH NO GET IT OFF ME! DNA REPLICATION ARRRRRRRRRRRHHHHHHHHH! STOP DROP AND ROLL!! GET IT OFF! GET IT OFF!
rontayan 9 months ago
@rontayan lol.
suicune690 9 months ago
@CrazyAd88 HA! Family guy Joke!
rontayan 9 months ago
I was just wondering... What is that cross-like light blue protein that holds all the enzymes together in place? Funny to know that this is very unlike textbooks where the enzymes show up individually and start doing their own thing...
wrewlf99 11 months ago
@wrewlf99 That's actually the core subunits of the DNA Polymerase holoenzyme. The circles around the two new strands are the Beta-clamp and clamp-loader. The circle around the parent strands is DNA helicase, separating the two strands.
msc0328 11 months ago 10
@msc0328 Thank you! :D
wrewlf99 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@msc0328 Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins. All amino acids in proteins are 'LEFT-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'RIGHT-handed'. Chirality!
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!!. Which life can't use!! Its what we see in nature and in labs!
Life never came about by time chance natural processes! IMPOSSIBLE!!!
5tonyvvvv 2 months ago
@wrewlf99 i believe that the light blue structure holding on to the DNAP + helicase is part of the core....it consists of the clamp loader that loads sliding clamps behind the DNAP and the Tau proteins that help hold on to the helicase+ individual DNAP III....at least that's what i get going by Watson' molecular biology of the gene 6th edition
0NauGhT0 9 months ago
@wrewlf99 The DNA polymerase dimer is held together with a protein complex including tau-proteins (the arms that connect to the DNA pols) and the clamp loader. The clamp loader reaches up behind the helicase so that a new clamp can grab onto a new DNA-RNA primer complex. When the lagging strand DNA polymerase is done synthesizing an Okazaki fragment, it dissociates from the DNA and interacts with the clamp loader to associate with a new clamp and to begin synthesis again using the primer.
drorchid65 2 months ago
nice video, but i miss some factors like Topoismerases .
Really funny that there really exist people who denied the evolution, Since know I thought it is unbeliefebale that such stupid people exist, maybe there found a time machine 1000 years ago.
hanzwurstli 11 months ago
This video is amazing. You actually get to see what the process looks like in 3D not like the 2D pictures in my textbook.
Devan1191 11 months ago
I get nauseous watching this video.
SonicPAJ 11 months ago
I love Biology :D
MultiNerve 11 months ago
I wish there was some kind of filter designed to filter out anti-evolution religious extremists... they are ruining everyone's learning experience.
eBiology 11 months ago
BTW thank you for your responses.Research on various anatomical features of Archaeopteryx in the last ten years or so, however, has shown, in EVERY CASE, that the characteristic in question is bird-like, not reptile-like. And I don't want to be a n ass by spamming your channel with them but they are available.
MayonR 11 months ago
@MayonR You're missing the point. Of course archeopteryx is more bird or reptile like - are you demanding a PERFECT mix of every characteristic? Not only would that classification be subjective, but if the head is more like a bird, but the tail-bone is more like a reptile, how would you qualitatively declare that the bird-part is more significant than the tail-part - simply because you look at heads to distinguish things? hardly. Your points are non-sequiters from your original claims.
msc0328 11 months ago
@msc0328 This is by the evolutionary camps standards. "We are not even authorized to consider the exceptional case of archaeopteryx as a true link. By link, we mean a necessary stage of transition between classes such as reptiles and birds, or between smaller groups. An animal displaying characteristics belonging to two different groups cannot be treated as a true link as long as the intermediary stages have not been found, and as long as the mechanisms of transition remain unknown."Pierre Nouy
MayonR 11 months ago
@MayonR I'm not sure what your intent is. You only talk about archeopteryx. There are many other transitional forms for tetrapods, fish, bats, whales, humans, and other higher order metazoans. That quote by Pierre Nouy is referring to archeopteryx as a link with extant species; but it is consensus that archeopteryx is a transitional form, even if it is of extinct species. Again, you point/quote is a non-sequitur from your original argument, "transitional stages are assumed"
msc0328 11 months ago
@msc0328[[ You only talk about archeopteryx.]] Not that I mind, but I didn't bring it up. I can spam away which might appear rude so I don't try to beat a dead horse but respectfully engage with anything relevant to our current discussion. Hope it remains interesting.Pierre also mentioned no stages demonstrated between classes. I've provided standards that evolutionists or simply science requires to come to a conclusion that is certain. I don't think your asserting we should lower the standards.
MayonR 11 months ago
@MayonR It's not interesting if it's not a supporting argument for your main point. Your point was about any/all transitional forms. Your later points only discuss the niceties for the scientific classification for archeopteryx and whether it is a true link to EXTANT species. It remains an intermediate form by definition, and none of this disturbs the CLEAR TRANSITIONAL FORMS FOR TETRAPODS, FISH, BATS, WHALES, HUMANS, etc.
msc0328 11 months ago
@msc0328 [[It's not interesting]] oh thanks.[[Your point was about any/all transitional forms.]] And our Archaeopteryx conversation is encompassed in that, I'll let you drive, no prob.Your channel.(love the vid).[[It remains an intermediate form]] You and me know that consensus doesn't determine science, maybe scientism, but not true science.
MayonR 11 months ago
@MayonR Consensus is a driving force of science. Science is not a constant result - is a constant process. The answers can change, based on consensus.
msc0328 11 months ago
@msc0328 Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method. Though consensus may be based on it.
MayonR 11 months ago
And Henry Ge wrote in Nature "To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story -- amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific."
MayonR 11 months ago
@MayonR Your lack of understanding in this subject is apparent now. Your original point was that transitional forms do not exist - but they do; of course Archeopteryx may or may not be in the direct line of modern birds - but Archeopteryx represents a proof of principle that transitional forms DID and DO exist, confirming the notion that there IS a line for every species. Demanding that we have EVERY transitional form for EVERY species to prove evolution is not how this works.
msc0328 11 months ago
@msc0328 It's not my understanding, but am providing the understanding of science. Even Archeopteryx rides on lots of assumption. From the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology [2(4):439(1983)]. "Benton states that the quadrate in Archaeopteryx was singleheaded as in reptiles. Using computed tomography, Haubitz,, established that the quadrate o Archaepoteryx was double-headed and thus similar to the condition of modern birds,7 rather than single-headed, as stated by Benton."
MayonR 11 months ago
According to evolutionary journal Nature "both sides in the current controversy over bird origins agree that modern birds are probably not descended from Archaeopteryx......Their critics look to animals that clearly lived earlier, but have not yet found one similar enough to Archaeopteryx to be a good candidate. As a result, both sides are still looking for the missing link."
MayonR 11 months ago
So the transitional stages are assumed as even wikipedia will not claim it is absolute proof. If you organize books on the assumptions of evolution you will organize them from smallest to biggest. Then we open them up and we look at the dates and find it is wrong based on our assumptions.
MayonR 11 months ago
@MayonR Wikipedia is not the authority on this process. And you are mistaken that transitional stages are assumed - they are present all around us.
msc0328 11 months ago
@msc0328 [[Wikipedia is not the authority on this process.]] Only mentioned it because I was refered there a few comments back and noticed it's disclaimer. Even the transitional stages cannot be demonstrated and are heavily assumed. But more diverse creatures have been found to exist before the time of the KT boundary which were bigger animals of all kinds than today when they should have been smaller and simpler.
MayonR 11 months ago
@MayonR [[Even the transitional stages cannot be demonstrated and are heavily assumed.]] How are you claiming this? From Tiktaalik, to Archeopteryx, to Ambulocetus ... there are many more. And the KT boundary is not the defining point for complex body forms - that would be the pre-cambrian explosion; and you would *expect* to see more diverse creatures *before* an extinction event. This supporting point is a non-sequiter.
msc0328 11 months ago
i love how she says backwards at around 0:54
umenyanevsedoma 11 months ago
People still deny evolution...? What century do we live in!?!?!
eBiology 11 months ago
@eBiology [[People still deny evolution...? What century do we live in!]] To date evoloution has not been demonstrated. At most it is assumed.
MayonR 11 months ago
OMG! stop it already....... dont go on and on bout ID.... there has been enough proof about evolution and other theories.... if you fail to see light in these arguments, well.... guess you're the king of idiocracy..... and WHO DA HELL IN THIS WORLD DISLIKED THIS VID?????
baba23993 11 months ago
@baba23993 [[there has been enough proof about evolution and other theories]] Proof has not been presented. Evidence is different than proof. There is tremendous evidence of a Creator as well as evolution. The day we can positively show a change between one species to another or if a human is born with wings that allow flight than it probably will be considered proof.
MayonR 11 months ago
god that is absolutely beautiful. everyone stop fighting, and thinking about how this is happening TRILLIONS of times, RIGHT NOW all throughout your body. amazing.
iansquared3 11 months ago 11
@iansquared3 Not only your body but every single living thing on the planet. Including plants and bacteria (granted bacteria dna is a loop not a helix and the specific enzymes are technically different BUT BASICALLY)
profanityridden 6 months ago
If it looks like it was designed, acts like it was designed, reacts like it was designed. Voila, It's evolution!!! How brilliant!!
There needs be an intelligent designer in order for the complex information within DNA to exist. The complex information cannot happen by chance. This video shows the intelligence is within the design itself. What I want to know is who or what first compiled all the enormous amounts of information into the billions of different micro biological systems?
KrisMayeaux 11 months ago
@KrisMayeaux "If it looks like the sun revolves around the earth, acts like it revolves around the earth. Voila, the earth revolves around the sun!!! How brilliant!!!"
Your kind have been disputing proven science since the dark ages. Actually: they never left the dark ages. Just as you now accept that the earth is round and revolves around the sun, your descendants will accept the indisputable truth of evolution. It takes a couple of centuries for idiocy to die out.
prescod 11 months ago
@prescod [[Just as you now accept that the earth is round and revolves around the sun, your descendants will accept the indisputable truth of evolution.]] You are supposing that an educated top league scholar cannot surmise from the evidence laid out, that a Creator is the most logical assumption. In fact there are numerous Atheistic/Evolutionary scientist that were forced to conclude a Creator based on their research, such as Walter J. Veith. Don't assume lack of knowledge because of a belief.
MayonR 11 months ago
@MayonR You're right that lack of knowledge is not the problem. A strong wish to ignore the information is the problem. I'm just saying that your descendants will give up the fight once they've lost, just as your ancestors did about geocentrism. Or, to be more accurate, just as there are now only a handful of geocentrists in the world now, there will be only a handful of young earth creationists in 200 years. You're just really frigging annoying in the meantime.
prescod 11 months ago
@KrisMayeaux "There needs be an intelligent designer in order for the complex information within DNA to exist. The complex information cannot happen by chance."
Nobody said it happened by chance. That's a strawman argument. Go back to elementary school and ask your science teacher about natural selection.
prescod 11 months ago
@prescod [[Nobody said it happened by chance. That's a strawman argument. Go back to elementary school and ask your science teacher about natural selection.]] Natural selection demonstrates the process of adaptation. It doesn't prove macro evolution which is the change from one species to another. Intel ID'ers and evolutionists agree on natural selection. The argument is about the change of species which has never been observed and transitional species fossils cannot be shown.
MayonR 11 months ago
@MayonR You continue to show your ignorance or dishonesty with every comment. Transitional fossils cannot be shown? Is that ignorance or a lie?
Please Search for the term "Transitional Fossil" on wikipedia.
Please search for the term "Transitonal Hominid Skulls" on Google.
prescod 11 months ago
@prescod I'm sure you have seen the problems and the assumptions that arise in transitional fossil as an indisputable explanation. One is that the supposed primitive characteristic such as bony scales that gave rise to more complex scales still exist. And the opposite also exists. Complex animals that were arisen from primitive existed with primitive fossils.This is shown when sequencing 18s ribosomal RNA from various species which suggests that many of the phyla appeared simultaneously.
MayonR 11 months ago
@MayonR Bony scales still existing is not a problem with the theory. It is completely consistent with the theory of evolution. I'm not familiar with any new pseudo-science linking 18s RNA to creationism. Please provide a citation in whatever format YouTube will support.
prescod 11 months ago
@prescod Sorry momentarily gone..older textbooks have proclaimed that Chordatas(our phylum) didn't appear till the Ordovician period but the Burgess Shale contains a chordate in the Cambrian period where only primitave fossils are supposed to be. Complex existed with primitive and supposed transitional exist today such as the coelacanth.
MayonR 11 months ago
@KrisMayeaux
Your question is flawed as is your reasoning. How often have you seen complex working machines like us outside of seeing some product of the Earth?
Further, who. Who made the clouds? Who made the dunes in the deserts?
To ask who biases any possible answer you may get. Why is who necessary?
Noone makes the dunes, noone makes the clouds, noone makes the dna in the countless microbes you killed today.
It's the result of huge numbers of smaller units acting on shared rules.
Koshy2 11 months ago
me and my friends did a science video on DNA as a project and we used this video! our video tht we made is called chanel 7 news DNA plz check it out!!
bandgeekcheerleader2 1 year ago
There are tons of useless relics in our DNA. Half of it is just repeated sequences that code for nothing (transposons). Another good portion of it is non repeated sequences that also do not result in any proteins (introns). You're left with less than 4% of our DNA that actually codes for proteins.
-Mol. Bio of Cell 5/e Garland Science 2008 fig 4-17
Take a look at our mitochondria for more evidence of evolution; it has it's own separate CIRCULAR DNA, just like bacteria. Evolution is obvious.
OlReagan 1 year ago
@OlReagan
Transposons form loops that are used to terminate replication I believe.
Introns may have unknown functions.
Koshy2 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
When DNA replicates its strands are separated by enzine helicase.
Single-stranded DNA binding proteines keep the strands from (...?).
One DNA strand encodes the leading strand using DNA Polymerase III.
THANKYOU FOR THIS VIDEO.
chocochocoholic03 1 year ago
When DNA replicates its strands are separated by enzine helicase.
Single-stranded DNA binding proteines keep the strands from (...?).
One DNA strand encodes the leading strand using DNA Polymerase III.
THANKYOU FOR THIS VIDEO.
chocochocoholic03 1 year ago
Thanks so much for this! It was really helpful; the pictures in my AP Textbook just don't cut it lol...
joolaycho 1 year ago
what's the light blue part?
saracastically 1 year ago
@saracastically
The light blue part (the one that flexes around to grab the DNA strand) is called the tau subunit. It attaches the alpha polymerase subunits, the ones that make the DNA, to the core of the superstructure. The alpha subunits would just fall off the superstructure every time they reach the next primer if there was no tau subunit to attach them..
potsdamcsc 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
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
it is really strange to see you debating about ID vs. evolution (in some way or another); for most people outside the US this is totally incomprehensible. it's just evolution.
meslud 1 year ago 19
@meslud I agree that it's pretty ridiculous that this even has to be debated. The sadder part is this: if we do not debate or challenge them, their nonsense goes unopposed and is seen by other religious fundamentalists as a victory and correct answer. Therefore, speak up when you hear this sort of nonsense coming out of other peoples' mouths.
msc0328 1 year ago 3
@meslud I'd like to apologize for my country- sometimes we mistake ignorance for indepence
aptanalogy 9 months ago
Just a quick question, does it mean that the lagging strand constantly uses new DNA polymerases as it makes a new okasaki fragment?
bonvea 1 year ago
@bonvea Well, the same polymerase is used on the lagging strand .. if you watch the video, you'll see that it's constantly letting go and then reattaching at another point. On the leading strand it just stays on, but on the lagging strand, it keeps being kicked off ... so you'll see the clamp come in and attach it back to a new primer to start again ... does that make sense?
msc0328 1 year ago
@msc0328 ohh i think i was looking at the turquoise portion (what is that by the way?) so the DNA polymerase is the one that pulls the lagging strand away from the central part?
bonvea 1 year ago
@bonvea The turquoise portion is the clamp... the polymerase is purple... the clamp loader is the light purple or lavendar ... the clamp and polymerase hit an already sysnthesized okazaki fragment and the clamp falls off - back on the main holoenzyme, the clamp loader grabs the single-stranded DNA with a new clamp, and then the purple polymerase associates with the new clamp and starts synthesizing until it runs into the next okazaki fragment, when the clamp falls off again... make sense?
msc0328 1 year ago
@msc0328 yeap that makes perfect sense! exam is tmr.. Thanks a lot!
bonvea 1 year ago
@msc0328
ok so
isn't the teal (clamp) bit the dna ligase?
isn't the clamp loader (lavandar) rna primase or is it the green bit that comes and goes?
which one of all these is the polymerase 1?
jebitesepichke 1 year ago
@jebitesepichke DNA ligase is not shown here. The clamp loader is not the RNA primase, but the green bit that comes and goes. And none of this is polymerase I - this is showing polymerase III in E. coli, the main enzyme required for replication. although polymerase I does not appear, it is the most versatile of the 3 E. coli polymerases with extra proof-reading capabilities.
msc0328 1 year ago
@msc0328 alright, thx!
never imagined this process to look like this :D
jebitesepichke 1 year ago
@msc0328 There are 5 known E. coli DNA polymerases.
YouBoob85 1 year ago
@msc0328 It is not known fully if clamp and polymerase core subunits are immediately recycled, which is what is shown in the animation. Pol III subunits are produced at a very low number suggesting they are required to be recycled on the lagging strand. Old and new subunits are most likely interchangeably incorporated randomly on the lagging strand.
YouBoob85 1 year ago
Not defending ID here, but if this replication process evolved, wouldn't it had to have gone through a number of intermediate states on the way to this? And shouldn't the biome on the earth thus be littered with inferior DNA-replicating mechanism the same way it is littered with inferior eyes, inferior hands/paws, etc.?
Also, who the hell dislikes this video? :O
lectrick 1 year ago
@lectrick you are correct that there were a number of intermediate stages. However, we would not expect the biome to be littered with primitive replicating mechanisms because once one mechanisms is successful, it can outcompete all of the others and is passed on to the next prosperous generation. Each improvement will outcompete the last generation's slower methods. The only places to find these primitive processes is in extreme environments where competition is much less.
msc0328 1 year ago
@lectrick that's an interesting thought that other scientists have written about - the consensus answer is, "no, we would not find inferior replicating mechanisms" because unlike fossils, molecules don't stay around, and DNA replication is clearly outcompeting everything else. And other scientists would respond that we *do* see other mechanisms around us - take viruses for example, champions of evolution, and they use RNA for their genomes sometimes ... that's sort of like a fossil
msc0328 1 year ago 5
@msc0328 Also important to note that this evolved in single-celled organisms when life was first starting out on this planet, and all other multicellular life is just an extension of that core concept. The reason all cellular life shares these characteristics is precisely because it evolved from one successful organism.
trisweb 1 year ago
I agree about the virus and they do last longer, pretty interesting stuff, perhaps the answer may lay there after all they haven't been studied that much
AbimaelOmarLS 11 months ago
@lectrick maybe because this is the bare minimum requirement of life, it hasn't evolved yet with the exclusion of "new life" like blue-green algae and certain forms of rare jellyfish, and the recent microbes that are comprised of arsenic. anyway they have more efficient systems and suffer far less DNA degradation, the primary cause of aging, in contrast humans live appx. 80 yrs while some of these creatures can live 400+ under the right conditions.
akropiss 11 months ago
Not defending ID here, but if this replication process evolved, wouldn't it had to have gone through a number of intermediate states on the way to this? And shouldn't the biome on the earth thus be littered with inferior DNA-replicating mechanism the same way it is littered with inferior eyes, inferior hands/paws, etc.?
lectrick 1 year ago
This is my kind of Youtube flamewar. Not trolls or racism or religion or politcs! Nay, on this video, we wage virtual war over SCIENCE. : )
Wuzupshamu 1 year ago 2
Isn't it amazing how molecules can engage in mechanical processes such as DNA replication. Nature truly is the best nano-engineer.
TheBassguitarking 1 year ago 4
this video makes a complicated topic even more complicated...
RiggerDaMan 1 year ago