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
It's not "proof" at all, and anyonbe who claims that it is, lacks understanding of either science or God, or both.
As an unqualified scientist, as an intelligent, rational man, as someone who has spent my entire life continually thinking and learning about these things, I cannot find any logic in an argument which claims that such astounding processes (of which this is just one of a great many) are a mere incidental consequence of random accident processes, at all.
@dorama1987 In short, yes, I fail to see how such things could originate accidentally. I am a theist, and had become increasingly 'spiritual' after having developed an understanding of the physics of energy and mass, space and time through the teachings of such masters as Einstein, Schrodinger, Feynman, Planck, to name but a few. Youtube is hardly the forum for deep and insightful debate; suffice it to say I feel compelled to give serious consideration to the possibility of the existence of God
@mokopa Fact. People who say these sort of thing have never studied physics. What they mean is they have read pop science and think they have understanding from simple cases, analogies and metaphors.
@conartist1991 It doesnt have to be. Mokopa may be thinking of a Deistic sort of god; something that provided the 'blueprints' for this universe, but doesnt do anything else, and certainly does not intervene actively in this universe.
There is offcourse no proof of this aside from the illusion of intelligent design, but i personally do not mind deists, as their idea of god has no influence at all on their choices in the real world. They are religious in mind only.
@omegastar19 I don't care if he believes in God, doesn't believe in God or worships the fucking tooth fairy.
What annoys me is that Mokopa is an idiot trying to feign understanding and that his "religious/philosophical" position is right because he "understands physics".
I don't know you, nor your background, but if you'd like to issue a challenge to compare our respective "knowledge and understanding of physics", I'd be more than happy. I actually know a lot, and particle physics is a bit of a forte for me. So, chum, bring it on...
@mokopa Does your "knowledge" of particle physics include any formal training?o Or does " particle physics is a bit of a forte for me" mean " I watched youtube Videos on the LHC?"
I'm not a PhD yet, if that's what you're asking, but I can confidentally assert that my knowledge of particle physics places me at the far end of the skinny part of the bell curve.
why so complicated if god just can take clay, breath at it and voila - life! Why have all that complex shit going on if god just can make clay alive? Think about it...
There's not much to think about. The laws of nature, described by science, are as complex as they need to be to bring about all the wonderful processes necessary to maintain this complex universe. You're asking a silly question anyway - look at how complex an internal combustion engine needs to be just to make the wheels on the bus go round and round. Think about THAT.
A Combustion Engine is very primitiv compared to that because it did not evolve it was thought. But the modern combustion engines are much more complex because of evolution in design. You keep the stuff that works good and add new stuff. Even man-made-stuff gets better that way. This incredible complex thing called "organism" is the result of millions of years of this process. It's not "BAM there it is - I did it with magic btw" from some "god". BTW: Who created god?
i dont understand what you have to be thinking to dislike this video. it's a video on cell division, not an opinion piece o_o how do u DISlike mitosis???
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 belief that our wondrous universe could have evolved by blind chance is crazy. And I do not at all mean crazy in the sense of a slangy invective but rather in the technical meaning of psychotic. Indeed such a view has much in common with certain aspects of schizophrenic thinking."
freaking sick man... i thought it was some super advanced electron microscopy or something at first before i realized it was an animation... they make you study all this stuff with boring text and conceptualized diagrams but when you actually see it in realistic action, the scope of these computer-like processes going on in every cell in your body is immense
A circle is round. 1+1 = 2. Evolution is for psychos. 1 week = 7 days. Darwin was a med school drop out. The earth has a moon. Evolution is political propaganda forced into children's brains at school with tax dollars before they can properly think for themselves. A line has two points. Evolution is Socialism remolding Man in its own image: You are just a beast, expendable in service to your higher evolved betters. There is no higher power than the Man, do not look up, you are just a monkey.
@practicetestaccount Giant facepalm...Let me break down evolution for you, Nathan style:
There is a mutation in the DNA of a cell, an A nucleotide becomes a T, e.g. Because of said mutation, the protein that is made from that strand of DNA has one single amino acid that is different, or it is longer/shorter, which changes the entire protein. Because of that change, the animal is either A) kicked in the nuts by natural selection and dies off or B) Is successful and reproduces. Not so hard is it?
@StefanandNathan You may need to facepalm harder if you think natural selection = macro evolution. 5000+ years of selective breeding applied this principle & proves to REDUCE genetic information in phenotypes. Ever heard of genetic drifting? same thing. Gregory Mendel vigorously opposed Darwinian evolution & his explanation for inheritance (ignorantly called "blending") & wrote Darwin of his discovery of genes, which Darwin rejected as being too mathematical. Evolution is a political weapon.
Yeah, let's leave Darwin aside, because he doesn't really matter. It's Science what you're against.
So... A reduction of information, you say? Can you quantify this "information" stuff, so we can see you know what you're talking about?
Can you tell us how much "information" did the DNA in the video contain? Shall i show you a segment of real DNA, so you tell me how much "information" it has? ^_^
@lardhat "Can you quantify this "information" stuff, so we can see you know what you're talking about?"
It helps if you put "information" back into the context you thoughtfully edited out.. as in "GENETIC information" see also "PHENOTYPES" and "GENETIC DRIFTING" I'll even through in "ALLELE FREQUENCY" for you.
That fact that you had to ask speaks volumes. Have a good day lardhat.
No, it doesn't help me. You're avoiding my simple question.
Can you quantify this "information" stuff so we can see you know what you're talking about?
I don't have to edit in or out anything. You said "information", and you talked about it as if it could be measured (when you talked about a reduction).
@lardhat So when you see the phrase "genetic information" you don't know that it is referring to the information coded in genes? Do you even know what a gene is? That you had to ask what information I was talking shows you don't even know what a gene is, if you did you wouldn't even need to ask. Look, you're just a militant atheist who doesn't know science, you don't know history, you don't know world politics and you don't know how the real world works. You've wasted enough of my time.
I didn't ask you what information is. I asked for you to answer if you can quantify it. Because you talked about a reduction.
I could ask you what YOU mean when you say "information", because in my experience creationist information is nothing like what scientists say.
Do you dare discussing these matters in a forum dedicated to this debate? Because we always have a shortage of creationists who can read and write. ^_^
So if someone points out Darwin had to reject real science (Genetics, basically a branch of Information Technology) because his theory demanded it, that means they are "against science"? lol. Who can argue against logic like that..which again, is demanded to protect the theory. Maybe Mendel was "against science" too for rejecting the repackaged ancient Greek mythos, right?
"The belief that our wondrous universe could have evolved by blind chance is crazy. And I do not at all mean crazy in the sense of a slangy invective but rather in the technical meaning of psychotic. Indeed such a view has much in common with certain aspects of SCHIZOPHRENIC THINKING."
@lardhat So you break down credentialed professionals into creationists or evolutionists? and if they happen to be creationists you dismiss them? Thank you for showing us how you oversimplify the world into black or white blocks. It really puts your bias into stark view.
You're a religious person (most likely explanation for the denial of scientific facts), and you rely on authority, but that's not the way Science works.
Darwin was wrong about some things regarding the fact of Evolution. And that doesn't matter, because (unlike you) we're not bound to defend some dead guy.
Those who thought the Earth was a perfect sphere were wrong, but that's not an excuse to rehash the flat Earth theory.
Our understanding of the fact of Evolution increased over these 150 years. Since you can't deal with the real thing, you have to attack a poor guy who died long ago.
@lardhat Oh you're breaking my heart. Yeah, this "poor guy" was from one of the richest families in England and was against helping real poor people believing they were putting strain on government, and inspired the eugenics movement (particularly his half-cousin Francis Galton who coined the phrase "eugenics") with his "Favoured Races" ideology. His own son (the one who survived Darwin's inbreeding practice long enough) Leonard Darwin was also president of the Eugenics Society. Pathetic indeed.
@lardhat The fact is you can't deal with reality. You don't even know what science is and you have to switch the discussion to me. Darwin's theory demanded that he reject Genetics, deal with it. It was only later once Mendel's (a monk) theory was seen directly that the NeoDarwinists bluffed & said "of course it proves evolution silly." Evolution isn't science but insinuates itself into scientific discussions due to global political agendas (very similar to today's Anthropogenic Global Warming).
1) Nothing real. It's just a fancy word you like to use, which will remain forever nebulous and undefined so it doesn't even deserve a refutation.
2) Real bits and bytes. This type of information sure does increase. Gene duplication does the trick. If the duplicated sequence gets mutated, even more information is added.
3) Information about the environment where it evolved. It increases too (i.e. incidence of sickle cell anemia).
@practicetestaccount "Gregory Mendel vigorously opposed Darwinian evolution & his explanation for inheritance (ignorantly called "blending") & wrote Darwin of his discovery of genes, which Darwin rejected as being too mathematical" Have you got references for both these things ie (1) Mendal writing Dawin (2) Darwin rejecting his discoveries as too mathematical. Thanks
@practicetestaccount Macro evolution is powered by natural selection. Genetic Drift is a general trend in a subset of individuals towards one particular phenotype/genotype over time for a series of reasons irrelevant to your point. It is impossible to reduce genetic information in phenotypes, in fact, what do you even mean by 'reduce gen. info.' In short, your post makes no sense. It seems you have little grasp of genetics, and are attempting to impress people with improperly used jargon.
@Zeabos "Macro evolution is powered by natural selection"
No, mutation is imagined as this driving force. NS only 'selects' which subset survives (a REDUCTION process). Congrats, you don't even understand your own fake religion & must deny the plain facts of empirical science to uphold it. That a relatively tiny number of species exist now then in the past proves my point. Unfortunately no amount of real science & logic will kill macro-evo as it was never founded on such to begin with.
I actually liked the absence of music and the "empty" sounds in the background. For a moment I felt some sort of a connection with the true void and complexity of the universe. It didn't feel good, I felt awfully lonely, but it felt 'honest'. I don't even smoke weed.
Tbh, it's annoying that all the visual illustrations about whatever scientific events are most often illustrated with some sort of a music in the background when shown to the masses. I liked this video because it was the opposite.
Ok.. I'm impresed. I can't believe we have these millions fast workingh macchines inside of us. What makes them move so fast? Where do they get the energy? From the food we eat, I suppose, but it seems that once a new cell is born it just goes on its own, like it has the energy all encompass within it. Very strange. The blue proteins (are they really blue?) in the beginning look like attacking insects.
I know this comment was made 4 weeks ago but the short answer (from what I learned in Biochemistry) about the energy is that the energy comes from the break down of ATP to ADP, releasing energy to make the machines work. The ATP comes from the Krebs cycle, which is in the mitochondria of our cells. The initiating material of the Krebs cycle comes from glycolysis, which is the break down of sugar (glucose) into precursors of many cycles. Our body is amazing.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
For those who insist that we are only biological machines,please accept without whinning when you are raped,robbed or murdered. You have no basis for complaint. Non exists.Of course we have a society that attempts to live "civilised". But that society also has no basis for complaint when destroyed. Naturally each has the "inbuilt right" to defend itself. Whinning is an irrelevant notion.Survival of the strongest.
If we are merely biological machines, then whining or complaining is based upon that biological machinery. Saying it has no basis is absurd. If you're attempting to say that complaining about the outcome of events in a deterministic universe is ludicrous, then you should say so, but the universe does not appear to be deterministic.
Sometimes an organism is more fit, not because it is the strongest, but because it is faster, smarter, less visible, requires less food, reproduces faster, or more socially cooperative. Organisms that can cooperate in a society that ensures the survival of all its members are more fit than those who use strength to take whatever they want.
A society is well within its rights to censer, punish, or remove a member whose behavior is antisocial.
polimerase DNA can add new nucleotide only to one end of strand. One strand is opposite to another. These ends are called 3' and 5'. So new nucleotide are added onl to 3' end. The other strand has to be copied "in parts" what means new starter and then adding new nucleotides to 3' ends of starter "backwards".
The problem is not about GOD. GOD is irrelevant. The problem is belief. Why have belief, when the movement of life does not care for the petty little structures we create. MAN does not care about LIFE. We care about ways of LIFE. Belief is not necessarry when life is able to autonomously generate itslef regardless of religion, faith, or this non-sensical, non-existent GOD. Refute all belief! It is in direct oppostion to LIFE! Also read up on UG Krishnamurti. It will BLOW YOUR MIND!
can someone tell me whether the first part is animation or video footage? although they only mention animation in the last part, the first part seems too high a quality.
just animation. No microscope or other machines can do that.
But yet, this animation is fastastic and very close to the real, based on the known mechanims. Its just simplified, hidding other components present there, but not participating in the process.
Every atom molecule is formed of energy. Spirits do not have atoms as spirits do not exist. There is no creator, the universe just is. God is imaginary.
Get rational and know that we are just an advanced form of ape.
I'm sure many in the history of human civilization has made that prayer. The fact that it hasn't been close to ever becoming true is a testament to the nonexistence of God.
What a nice poem. I love a lot of things. I love life. I love freedom. I love clear thought. I love understanding. I love knowledge. I love intelligence. I love self-awareness.
My wisdom comes from finding clear thought in naturalism, which far exceeds the wisdom of the delusional and supersticious. There is and never will be a conclusion to the gain of knowledge or the ability to make ourselves better. Such knowledge can only come about by study and persistence. Not supersticious conjecture.
The love for these things WILL flow into our life. Those who know and embrace naturalism will continue to improve humanity, making us better. Better at knowing, at caring, at fixing, at coexisting, at adapting. Those who share the love of the natural laws of the universe will take advantage of those laws so that all, even the supersticious, can benefit from its gifts. While those who believe in a fairy tale, will contribute nothing. Prayer: How to do nothing and still think you're helping.
No. I will not continue a discussion about theism vs atheism in a video comment forum about DNA Molecular Biology. If you really want to have this discussion, you can either PM me or take the discussion to the rational response squad forums. This is not the place for it.
Anyway the point of my comment was to distinguish between the two concepts chemical and biological evolution. They may inform each other but are very different disciplines
Why does there need to be a cause? Science is based on cause and effect, this is the ultimate question for the science community, it's fascinating!!
"Science is based on cause and effect" Not always. "Causes" are slippery things. We don't know what "causes" a lot of things, including gravity. We say that a phenomenon "can be explained by" rather than "is caused by" because it implies a greater humility and skepticism.
My knowledge of astrophysics is pretty basic, but as I understand it, t=0 is the Big Bang. There is no t=-1, or at least no way to observe/measure anything prior to t=0.
To do this this scientists have created a new theory called molecular evolution which is very different from Darwins theory. This states that amino acids in the promordial goo formed themselves into living organisms without any real known mechanism or pressure. This is the black box of Darwin. Connect this with the inablility of Physisist to explain the cause of the universe and you start to see that a natural origin of the universe is far from proven by the scientific method.
Nice try, but no. "Molecular evolution" is the study of evolution at the molecular level. "Chemical evolution" is related to abiogenesis. The mechanism of self-evolving chemical systems is well-known. WIkipedia has 8 pages on the topic. Go read something.
"Physisists [sic] are not able to explain the cause of the universe." I know where you are going with this, and no, because they don't need to ask what caused the universe. Why does the universe need a cause?
"why are no pre-cellular systems observable there today?"
"pre-cellular systems" means lipids, sugars and protein. The abundance of deep sea vent organisms eat the organic compounds. All the niches on Earth are quickly filled by existing life.
"RNA is easily broken down by hydrolysis and UV."
Hydrolysis is the process, not the cause. UV acts by free radical generation. A reducing environment like pre-life Earth would have scavenged free radicals.
It's worth noting that Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Life appears to be 4 billion years old. Nearly as soon as life could have begun, it did. That suggests to me that life was very likely on our planet.
Evolution requires the presence of the DNA molecule which is then inturn acted upon by random mutation. According to the Theory of Evolution this occasionally produces new beneficial alleles. These new alleles are then acted upon by natural selection creating speciation. Evolution starts after the formation of the DNA molecule so can't explain it's existance.
Chromatids are only formed during eukaryotic metaphase. I think the more common term is sister chromosomes. This is the packaged, transportable form of the chromosomes. The DNA only exists in this form following copying but before segregation.
The point stands, through. Chromosomes are always present in the cell. We just can't easily see them until they condense. To think that the chromosomes "dissolve" is incorrect.
Is this Harvard Graphics? Do you have permission, bio21?
Awesome, the little "machine" that divides the DNA is pretty funny. It looks like a little molecular man that bites the dna with his teeth and passes it on to his hand, who then lets go of it after some time...
Then the word that they want is "visible," not "present". Chromosomes are always present; depending on their degree of condensation, they may or may not be visible in a light microscope.
No the word present is correct because DNa is only referred to as chromosomes when it's condensed. Chromosome is just hte label fo rDNa that has coiled up.
avrei fato la replicazione più lentamente,niente male l'assemblaggio degli ottameri e delle fibre da 10 e da 30 nm peccato manchi trascrizione splicing e traduzione
You could build a Scanning Tunnelling Microscope for about twenty bucks if you know how to work an oscilloscope. Sorry but that's a negatory on the optical microscope being able to see DNA.
Electron microscope? No way. Too powerful. You do realize that you can see DNA with the naked eye? If you condense it up, it looks like a tiny, tiny sliver of egg white.
You seem to be raised by hillbillies or something 'cause you have no respect for other people. Not everyone knows biology, so calling them dumbasses is very uncalled for.
Seriously, this video was great, are there any more like it out there with the same quality of animation?
Billions of Tiny factories in me working constantly! Amazing!
phuturephunk 1 month ago in playlist Genetics & Genomics & Biology & Technology
This is so epic..
Puff...
phuturephunk 1 month ago in playlist Genetics & Genomics & Biology & Technology
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
i sit here looking at his, completely fucking speechless in utter fascination .
KOZPOSITIVE 5 months ago
I have to say, this creeps me the fuck out.
DoctorYumYums 5 months ago
I can't prove it was god or aliens but I can say that is some crazy shit.
ViciousJones 5 months ago
Pretty disgusting.
spasman 5 months ago
No God? Yeah, right...
mokopa 5 months ago
@mokopa Some people see this as proof of god, others see this as no need for god.
dorama1987 5 months ago
@dorama1987
It's not "proof" at all, and anyonbe who claims that it is, lacks understanding of either science or God, or both.
As an unqualified scientist, as an intelligent, rational man, as someone who has spent my entire life continually thinking and learning about these things, I cannot find any logic in an argument which claims that such astounding processes (of which this is just one of a great many) are a mere incidental consequence of random accident processes, at all.
mokopa 5 months ago
@mokopa I don't follow your argument. You say this isn't proof of god, but can't imagine that these processes arose without him. Is that correct?
dorama1987 5 months ago
@dorama1987 In short, yes, I fail to see how such things could originate accidentally. I am a theist, and had become increasingly 'spiritual' after having developed an understanding of the physics of energy and mass, space and time through the teachings of such masters as Einstein, Schrodinger, Feynman, Planck, to name but a few. Youtube is hardly the forum for deep and insightful debate; suffice it to say I feel compelled to give serious consideration to the possibility of the existence of God
mokopa 5 months ago
@mokopa Fact. People who say these sort of thing have never studied physics. What they mean is they have read pop science and think they have understanding from simple cases, analogies and metaphors.
conartist1991 5 months ago
@conartist1991 It doesnt have to be. Mokopa may be thinking of a Deistic sort of god; something that provided the 'blueprints' for this universe, but doesnt do anything else, and certainly does not intervene actively in this universe.
There is offcourse no proof of this aside from the illusion of intelligent design, but i personally do not mind deists, as their idea of god has no influence at all on their choices in the real world. They are religious in mind only.
omegastar19 5 months ago
@omegastar19 I don't care if he believes in God, doesn't believe in God or worships the fucking tooth fairy.
What annoys me is that Mokopa is an idiot trying to feign understanding and that his "religious/philosophical" position is right because he "understands physics".
conartist1991 5 months ago
@conartist1991
I don't know you, nor your background, but if you'd like to issue a challenge to compare our respective "knowledge and understanding of physics", I'd be more than happy. I actually know a lot, and particle physics is a bit of a forte for me. So, chum, bring it on...
mokopa 5 months ago
@mokopa Does your "knowledge" of particle physics include any formal training?o Or does " particle physics is a bit of a forte for me" mean " I watched youtube Videos on the LHC?"
conartist1991 5 months ago
@conartist1991
I'm not a PhD yet, if that's what you're asking, but I can confidentally assert that my knowledge of particle physics places me at the far end of the skinny part of the bell curve.
mokopa 5 months ago
@mokopa Fine, what are your thoughts on Complex Systems, and in particular, self organisation?
conartist1991 5 months ago
@mokopa
why so complicated if god just can take clay, breath at it and voila - life! Why have all that complex shit going on if god just can make clay alive? Think about it...
FriScho 5 months ago
@FriScho
There's not much to think about. The laws of nature, described by science, are as complex as they need to be to bring about all the wonderful processes necessary to maintain this complex universe. You're asking a silly question anyway - look at how complex an internal combustion engine needs to be just to make the wheels on the bus go round and round. Think about THAT.
mokopa 5 months ago
@mokopa
A Combustion Engine is very primitiv compared to that because it did not evolve it was thought. But the modern combustion engines are much more complex because of evolution in design. You keep the stuff that works good and add new stuff. Even man-made-stuff gets better that way. This incredible complex thing called "organism" is the result of millions of years of this process. It's not "BAM there it is - I did it with magic btw" from some "god". BTW: Who created god?
FriScho 5 months ago
I don't understand what is going on in the video, but I love it.
skydark 5 months ago
And this is how we were made by aliens.
codykonior 5 months ago
Comment removed
codykonior 5 months ago
I`ve seen enough hentai..
kQdd 5 months ago
i dont understand what you have to be thinking to dislike this video. it's a video on cell division, not an opinion piece o_o how do u DISlike mitosis???
khyunwoo1 5 months ago 3
@khyunwoo1 The internet will find a way, as it always has.
eringobragh16 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
where's your god now?
cassedy 5 months ago
I came from Griffith Uni.
ytimg62 8 months ago
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
@RUSSKAYAG
Can your back up your mumble with a peer reviewed scientific article?
lardhat 1 year ago
@lardhat
this mumble is not for everyone.. sorry
RUSSKAYAG 1 year ago
@RUSSKAYAG
Certainly not for those who demand to see evidence before believing bullshit.
lardhat 1 year ago
@lardhat
i certainly agree ..
RUSSKAYAG 1 year ago
@RUSSKAYAG bullshit.
MrFukyutube 5 months ago
@MrFukyutube
judging by your profile name, it must be for you.. hmm lol
RUSSKAYAG 5 months ago
God is real
Believe it or not and continue living your life for/against him.
kamau329 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
See the ORIGINAL HIGH QUALITY VERSION and other movies by the same animator at our WEHImovies YouTube Channel
WEHImovies 1 year ago
Who is here because of Dr. D. Dansereau?
excruciator000 1 year ago
@excruciator000 YESSSSSSSSSSSS
bonvea 1 year ago
@bonvea Heheh I knew it!
excruciator000 1 year ago
how did practicetestaccount How did he get +10 vote.
excruciator000 1 year ago
@excruciator000
Looks suspicious. Doesn't it?
lardhat 1 year ago
Anyone else here cause the Sheriff sent you the link?
StefanandNathan 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The belief that our wondrous universe could have evolved by blind chance is crazy. And I do not at all mean crazy in the sense of a slangy invective but rather in the technical meaning of psychotic. Indeed such a view has much in common with certain aspects of schizophrenic thinking."
- Karl Stern, University of Montreal Psychiatrist
practicetestaccount 1 year ago 13
freaking sick man... i thought it was some super advanced electron microscopy or something at first before i realized it was an animation... they make you study all this stuff with boring text and conceptualized diagrams but when you actually see it in realistic action, the scope of these computer-like processes going on in every cell in your body is immense
harpred 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A circle is round. 1+1 = 2. Evolution is for psychos. 1 week = 7 days. Darwin was a med school drop out. The earth has a moon. Evolution is political propaganda forced into children's brains at school with tax dollars before they can properly think for themselves. A line has two points. Evolution is Socialism remolding Man in its own image: You are just a beast, expendable in service to your higher evolved betters. There is no higher power than the Man, do not look up, you are just a monkey.
practicetestaccount 1 year ago 44
@practicetestaccount
Wow I cannot believe this garbage has 14 thumbs up.
soapy05 1 year ago
@practicetestaccount Giant facepalm...Let me break down evolution for you, Nathan style:
There is a mutation in the DNA of a cell, an A nucleotide becomes a T, e.g. Because of said mutation, the protein that is made from that strand of DNA has one single amino acid that is different, or it is longer/shorter, which changes the entire protein. Because of that change, the animal is either A) kicked in the nuts by natural selection and dies off or B) Is successful and reproduces. Not so hard is it?
StefanandNathan 1 year ago
@StefanandNathan You may need to facepalm harder if you think natural selection = macro evolution. 5000+ years of selective breeding applied this principle & proves to REDUCE genetic information in phenotypes. Ever heard of genetic drifting? same thing. Gregory Mendel vigorously opposed Darwinian evolution & his explanation for inheritance (ignorantly called "blending") & wrote Darwin of his discovery of genes, which Darwin rejected as being too mathematical. Evolution is a political weapon.
practicetestaccount 1 year ago 5
@practicetestaccount
Yeah, let's leave Darwin aside, because he doesn't really matter. It's Science what you're against.
So... A reduction of information, you say? Can you quantify this "information" stuff, so we can see you know what you're talking about?
Can you tell us how much "information" did the DNA in the video contain? Shall i show you a segment of real DNA, so you tell me how much "information" it has? ^_^
lardhat 1 year ago
@lardhat "Can you quantify this "information" stuff, so we can see you know what you're talking about?"
It helps if you put "information" back into the context you thoughtfully edited out.. as in "GENETIC information" see also "PHENOTYPES" and "GENETIC DRIFTING" I'll even through in "ALLELE FREQUENCY" for you.
That fact that you had to ask speaks volumes. Have a good day lardhat.
practicetestaccount 1 year ago
@practicetestaccount
No, it doesn't help me. You're avoiding my simple question.
Can you quantify this "information" stuff so we can see you know what you're talking about?
I don't have to edit in or out anything. You said "information", and you talked about it as if it could be measured (when you talked about a reduction).
Can you do it or not?
lardhat 1 year ago
@lardhat So when you see the phrase "genetic information" you don't know that it is referring to the information coded in genes? Do you even know what a gene is? That you had to ask what information I was talking shows you don't even know what a gene is, if you did you wouldn't even need to ask. Look, you're just a militant atheist who doesn't know science, you don't know history, you don't know world politics and you don't know how the real world works. You've wasted enough of my time.
practicetestaccount 1 year ago
@practicetestaccount
You're not answering my question. I wonder why...
I didn't ask you what information is. I asked for you to answer if you can quantify it. Because you talked about a reduction.
I could ask you what YOU mean when you say "information", because in my experience creationist information is nothing like what scientists say.
Do you dare discussing these matters in a forum dedicated to this debate? Because we always have a shortage of creationists who can read and write. ^_^
lardhat 1 year ago
@lardhat "It's Science what you're against."
So if someone points out Darwin had to reject real science (Genetics, basically a branch of Information Technology) because his theory demanded it, that means they are "against science"? lol. Who can argue against logic like that..which again, is demanded to protect the theory. Maybe Mendel was "against science" too for rejecting the repackaged ancient Greek mythos, right?
practicetestaccount 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@practicetestaccount I think repeating the quote here is apropos:
"The belief that our wondrous universe could have evolved by blind chance is crazy. And I do not at all mean crazy in the sense of a slangy invective but rather in the technical meaning of psychotic. Indeed such a view has much in common with certain aspects of SCHIZOPHRENIC THINKING."
- Karl Stern, University of Montreal Psychiatrist
practicetestaccount 1 year ago
@practicetestaccount
Woah! Quoting a creationist is the best way to disprove scientific facts.
NOT!
lardhat 1 year ago
@lardhat So you break down credentialed professionals into creationists or evolutionists? and if they happen to be creationists you dismiss them? Thank you for showing us how you oversimplify the world into black or white blocks. It really puts your bias into stark view.
practicetestaccount 1 year ago
@practicetestaccount
______________
|So if someone
|points out Darwin
|had to bla bla bla
--------------------------
You're a religious person (most likely explanation for the denial of scientific facts), and you rely on authority, but that's not the way Science works.
Darwin was wrong about some things regarding the fact of Evolution. And that doesn't matter, because (unlike you) we're not bound to defend some dead guy.
lardhat 1 year ago
Those who thought the Earth was a perfect sphere were wrong, but that's not an excuse to rehash the flat Earth theory.
Our understanding of the fact of Evolution increased over these 150 years. Since you can't deal with the real thing, you have to attack a poor guy who died long ago.
That's pathetic.
lardhat 1 year ago
@lardhat Oh you're breaking my heart. Yeah, this "poor guy" was from one of the richest families in England and was against helping real poor people believing they were putting strain on government, and inspired the eugenics movement (particularly his half-cousin Francis Galton who coined the phrase "eugenics") with his "Favoured Races" ideology. His own son (the one who survived Darwin's inbreeding practice long enough) Leonard Darwin was also president of the Eugenics Society. Pathetic indeed.
practicetestaccount 1 year ago
@practicetestaccount
Sorry if i gave you the impression that i would read what you write about dead people. I won't.
Facts. Can you talk about them or not?
lardhat 1 year ago
@lardhat The fact is you can't deal with reality. You don't even know what science is and you have to switch the discussion to me. Darwin's theory demanded that he reject Genetics, deal with it. It was only later once Mendel's (a monk) theory was seen directly that the NeoDarwinists bluffed & said "of course it proves evolution silly." Evolution isn't science but insinuates itself into scientific discussions due to global political agendas (very similar to today's Anthropogenic Global Warming).
practicetestaccount 1 year ago
@practicetestaccount
If Darwin's theory demands something that's not real, then fuck Darwin's theory (whatever you mean by it).
Evolution remains a scientific fact.
lardhat 1 year ago
@lardhat And he believes in an imaginary being living in the clouds. Touche.
Faroskalin 5 months ago
@practicetestaccount
Thee options. By "information" you mean:
1) Nothing real. It's just a fancy word you like to use, which will remain forever nebulous and undefined so it doesn't even deserve a refutation.
2) Real bits and bytes. This type of information sure does increase. Gene duplication does the trick. If the duplicated sequence gets mutated, even more information is added.
3) Information about the environment where it evolved. It increases too (i.e. incidence of sickle cell anemia).
lardhat 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@practicetestaccount "Gregory Mendel vigorously opposed Darwinian evolution & his explanation for inheritance (ignorantly called "blending") & wrote Darwin of his discovery of genes, which Darwin rejected as being too mathematical" Have you got references for both these things ie (1) Mendal writing Dawin (2) Darwin rejecting his discoveries as too mathematical. Thanks
allan3141 6 months ago
Comment removed
Zeabos 5 months ago
@practicetestaccount Macro evolution is powered by natural selection. Genetic Drift is a general trend in a subset of individuals towards one particular phenotype/genotype over time for a series of reasons irrelevant to your point. It is impossible to reduce genetic information in phenotypes, in fact, what do you even mean by 'reduce gen. info.' In short, your post makes no sense. It seems you have little grasp of genetics, and are attempting to impress people with improperly used jargon.
Zeabos 5 months ago 8
@Zeabos "Macro evolution is powered by natural selection"
No, mutation is imagined as this driving force. NS only 'selects' which subset survives (a REDUCTION process). Congrats, you don't even understand your own fake religion & must deny the plain facts of empirical science to uphold it. That a relatively tiny number of species exist now then in the past proves my point. Unfortunately no amount of real science & logic will kill macro-evo as it was never founded on such to begin with.
practicetestaccount 1 month ago
@practicetestaccount Best troll ever.
halonone 1 year ago
@practicetestaccount
Wow... You put your imagination along with facts, to make it look like a fact... Awesome strategy! You don't even need to back it up! ^_^
lardhat 1 year ago
You just blew my mind.
jc987 1 year ago
scribd (dot) com/nb812
DreamsofMajesty 1 year ago
anyone else getting a kind of Lexx vibe?
Gesmehod 1 year ago
I actually liked the absence of music and the "empty" sounds in the background. For a moment I felt some sort of a connection with the true void and complexity of the universe. It didn't feel good, I felt awfully lonely, but it felt 'honest'. I don't even smoke weed.
Tbh, it's annoying that all the visual illustrations about whatever scientific events are most often illustrated with some sort of a music in the background when shown to the masses. I liked this video because it was the opposite.
olyfag 1 year ago 2
This was somewhat gross...
HDMix 1 year ago
A totally beautiful animation
ketanovas 2 years ago 2
boah wie geil english alter wiiiiie geiiil
madara7575 2 years ago 2
tHIS IS TRUE!!!!
Burn121212 2 years ago
enybody can translator this video, because I don´t speak english.
clavijo82 2 years ago
Dna Molecular Biology Visualizations -
Bob Marley Natural Mystic Live
Wrapping And Replicato copy or not to copy- A very Strange Being.
DoubleDutchBust 2 years ago
no doubt
SHOJMPR42 2 years ago
Ok.. I'm impresed. I can't believe we have these millions fast workingh macchines inside of us. What makes them move so fast? Where do they get the energy? From the food we eat, I suppose, but it seems that once a new cell is born it just goes on its own, like it has the energy all encompass within it. Very strange. The blue proteins (are they really blue?) in the beginning look like attacking insects.
Neurozumim 2 years ago
I know this comment was made 4 weeks ago but the short answer (from what I learned in Biochemistry) about the energy is that the energy comes from the break down of ATP to ADP, releasing energy to make the machines work. The ATP comes from the Krebs cycle, which is in the mitochondria of our cells. The initiating material of the Krebs cycle comes from glycolysis, which is the break down of sugar (glucose) into precursors of many cycles. Our body is amazing.
NessTheNoob 2 years ago 4
Anyone know if there's a visualization for DNA being discarded after a replication error?
JerrySinefield 2 years ago
Oh I love the soundtrack they made for this video!
alexplot 2 years ago
Thanks for video.
Dana
MsGrammarnazi 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
For those who insist that we are only biological machines,please accept without whinning when you are raped,robbed or murdered. You have no basis for complaint. Non exists.Of course we have a society that attempts to live "civilised". But that society also has no basis for complaint when destroyed. Naturally each has the "inbuilt right" to defend itself. Whinning is an irrelevant notion.Survival of the strongest.
porkwood 2 years ago
If we are merely biological machines, then whining or complaining is based upon that biological machinery. Saying it has no basis is absurd. If you're attempting to say that complaining about the outcome of events in a deterministic universe is ludicrous, then you should say so, but the universe does not appear to be deterministic.
somnolent49 2 years ago
Survival of the fittest. Fittest, not strongest.
Sometimes an organism is more fit, not because it is the strongest, but because it is faster, smarter, less visible, requires less food, reproduces faster, or more socially cooperative. Organisms that can cooperate in a society that ensures the survival of all its members are more fit than those who use strength to take whatever they want.
A society is well within its rights to censer, punish, or remove a member whose behavior is antisocial.
stork5100 2 years ago
why does the one strand go to the right while the other one has to be copied backwards? i dont get it
ISMskateteam 2 years ago
polimerase DNA can add new nucleotide only to one end of strand. One strand is opposite to another. These ends are called 3' and 5'. So new nucleotide are added onl to 3' end. The other strand has to be copied "in parts" what means new starter and then adding new nucleotides to 3' ends of starter "backwards".
TheAniaHS 2 years ago
We are only complex biological machines. Nothing more.
Josephjoel3 2 years ago
The problem is not about GOD. GOD is irrelevant. The problem is belief. Why have belief, when the movement of life does not care for the petty little structures we create. MAN does not care about LIFE. We care about ways of LIFE. Belief is not necessarry when life is able to autonomously generate itslef regardless of religion, faith, or this non-sensical, non-existent GOD. Refute all belief! It is in direct oppostion to LIFE! Also read up on UG Krishnamurti. It will BLOW YOUR MIND!
Josephjoel3 2 years ago
well good video matey!!!!!!!!!!!
RichieBees 2 years ago
wheres the version of this with epic western music on in the background?
lemurs366 2 years ago
The visualization of replication is particularly well-donel.
billbrock1958 2 years ago 2
can someone tell me whether the first part is animation or video footage? although they only mention animation in the last part, the first part seems too high a quality.
theninjacowboy 2 years ago
Comment removed
Komodo1987 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The first part is also computer animated, at least until the cell divides, I guess.
Komodo1987 2 years ago
In the beginning of the video it clearly says, "In this animation...." 0:08
vTunes 2 years ago 2
just animation. No microscope or other machines can do that.
But yet, this animation is fastastic and very close to the real, based on the known mechanims. Its just simplified, hidding other components present there, but not participating in the process.
reingp 2 years ago
1:18 - 1:44 looks like video footage to me
tjilptjilp01 2 years ago
wait is that last bit for real or is it just animation?
ConstantC4 2 years ago
Thank you god
you are prefect
i love you
thank you for your strenth and purity
hydrofirm 2 years ago
God doesn't exist.
psychosavant 2 years ago
every atom molecule substance from air to spirit is formed from one word
All creation is formed from one word and filled with one soul
There is one creator of this one ongoing creation
The one creator is now called God by us humans
Get wise and know we are divine co-creators
hydrofirm 2 years ago
Every atom molecule is formed of energy. Spirits do not have atoms as spirits do not exist. There is no creator, the universe just is. God is imaginary.
Get rational and know that we are just an advanced form of ape.
psychosavant 2 years ago
I pray that humanity can come into peace within our selves and come to recognize whence we came
hydrofirm 2 years ago
I'm sure many in the history of human civilization has made that prayer. The fact that it hasn't been close to ever becoming true is a testament to the nonexistence of God.
psychosavant 2 years ago
please have consideration
please follow your thoughts through to their fullest conclusion allow your self to be true to your inner wisdom
be true to your self
please have wisdom
please be strong
please allow your love to flow into our life
we have nothing until we can have love and understanding and wisdom
hydrofirm 2 years ago
What a nice poem. I love a lot of things. I love life. I love freedom. I love clear thought. I love understanding. I love knowledge. I love intelligence. I love self-awareness.
My wisdom comes from finding clear thought in naturalism, which far exceeds the wisdom of the delusional and supersticious. There is and never will be a conclusion to the gain of knowledge or the ability to make ourselves better. Such knowledge can only come about by study and persistence. Not supersticious conjecture.
psychosavant 2 years ago
The love for these things WILL flow into our life. Those who know and embrace naturalism will continue to improve humanity, making us better. Better at knowing, at caring, at fixing, at coexisting, at adapting. Those who share the love of the natural laws of the universe will take advantage of those laws so that all, even the supersticious, can benefit from its gifts. While those who believe in a fairy tale, will contribute nothing. Prayer: How to do nothing and still think you're helping.
psychosavant 2 years ago
Thank you
do you remember where "nature" comes from
hydrofirm 2 years ago
No. I will not continue a discussion about theism vs atheism in a video comment forum about DNA Molecular Biology. If you really want to have this discussion, you can either PM me or take the discussion to the rational response squad forums. This is not the place for it.
psychosavant 2 years ago
Anyway the point of my comment was to distinguish between the two concepts chemical and biological evolution. They may inform each other but are very different disciplines
Why does there need to be a cause? Science is based on cause and effect, this is the ultimate question for the science community, it's fascinating!!
thevoicejam 3 years ago
"Science is based on cause and effect" Not always. "Causes" are slippery things. We don't know what "causes" a lot of things, including gravity. We say that a phenomenon "can be explained by" rather than "is caused by" because it implies a greater humility and skepticism.
My knowledge of astrophysics is pretty basic, but as I understand it, t=0 is the Big Bang. There is no t=-1, or at least no way to observe/measure anything prior to t=0.
joemarklawson 3 years ago
To do this this scientists have created a new theory called molecular evolution which is very different from Darwins theory. This states that amino acids in the promordial goo formed themselves into living organisms without any real known mechanism or pressure. This is the black box of Darwin. Connect this with the inablility of Physisist to explain the cause of the universe and you start to see that a natural origin of the universe is far from proven by the scientific method.
thevoicejam 3 years ago
voicejam@
Nice try, but no. "Molecular evolution" is the study of evolution at the molecular level. "Chemical evolution" is related to abiogenesis. The mechanism of self-evolving chemical systems is well-known. WIkipedia has 8 pages on the topic. Go read something.
"Physisists [sic] are not able to explain the cause of the universe." I know where you are going with this, and no, because they don't need to ask what caused the universe. Why does the universe need a cause?
joemarklawson 3 years ago
Thanks for the correction, I looked at that again, been a while. Here are some questions; Iron-sulfur world theory;
Problem, why are no pre-cellular systems observable there today? RNA world hypothesis; RNA is easily broken down by hydrolysis and UV.
.
thevoicejam 3 years ago
"why are no pre-cellular systems observable there today?"
"pre-cellular systems" means lipids, sugars and protein. The abundance of deep sea vent organisms eat the organic compounds. All the niches on Earth are quickly filled by existing life.
"RNA is easily broken down by hydrolysis and UV."
Hydrolysis is the process, not the cause. UV acts by free radical generation. A reducing environment like pre-life Earth would have scavenged free radicals.
joemarklawson 3 years ago
It's worth noting that Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Life appears to be 4 billion years old. Nearly as soon as life could have begun, it did. That suggests to me that life was very likely on our planet.
joemarklawson 3 years ago
Is it true that present RNA based life is always a parasitic form that relies on the DNA of the host to replicate?
Where are these living RNA molecules that competed for larger and larger chins now? Panspermia hypothesis is amusing.
thevoicejam 3 years ago
Evolution requires the presence of the DNA molecule which is then inturn acted upon by random mutation. According to the Theory of Evolution this occasionally produces new beneficial alleles. These new alleles are then acted upon by natural selection creating speciation. Evolution starts after the formation of the DNA molecule so can't explain it's existance.
thevoicejam 3 years ago
what do u mean by chromosomes are not always present..They are always present in nucleous..
aniliasher 3 years ago
I agree. The chromosomes are always there, they just aren't visible until they get packaged. That seems like a pretty glaring error.
joemarklawson 3 years ago
arent they called chromatids until the cell starts replicating? then they double into chromosomes?
bjammm 3 years ago
Chromatids are only formed during eukaryotic metaphase. I think the more common term is sister chromosomes. This is the packaged, transportable form of the chromosomes. The DNA only exists in this form following copying but before segregation.
The point stands, through. Chromosomes are always present in the cell. We just can't easily see them until they condense. To think that the chromosomes "dissolve" is incorrect.
Is this Harvard Graphics? Do you have permission, bio21?
joemarklawson 3 years ago
Awesome, the little "machine" that divides the DNA is pretty funny. It looks like a little molecular man that bites the dna with his teeth and passes it on to his hand, who then lets go of it after some time...
Pretty funny animation, I must say...
Alex06CoSonic 3 years ago
the green thing is Okazaki fragment
hateprotoss 3 years ago
"Chromosomes are not always present"?!!? What a crock.
agathman 3 years ago
it's true. Chromosomes appear when cell seperates
zjw525 3 years ago 2
Then the word that they want is "visible," not "present". Chromosomes are always present; depending on their degree of condensation, they may or may not be visible in a light microscope.
agathman 3 years ago
No the word present is correct because DNa is only referred to as chromosomes when it's condensed. Chromosome is just hte label fo rDNa that has coiled up.
BuddhistChrist 3 years ago
Thank you for the video.
villanuevafrancis 3 years ago
Great video. Thanks for sharing!
DNArchitect 3 years ago
Ohh, i love this video, it reallt helped me when i did a science project on DNA!
2cool4you273 3 years ago
This sequence is part of thunderf00t's
"1000 years of Creationist 'Achievements'" video.
drunk168 3 years ago
it looks nasty
sourceCharlie777 3 years ago
very cool
oneeyedgeek 3 years ago
do you need sound for this video? who's better than me? my name is TELOMERASE.
telomeraseMusic 3 years ago
'as fast as a jet engine'
It's really fascinating how this happens over millions of times a day in our bodies with each cell.
TheBirdsGoTweet 3 years ago 3
omg thanku! it finally clicked! XD
trackgabster 3 years ago
good animation and lecture
spbmrbha 3 years ago 2
¡PLEASE! traduction to spanish...I a'm not understand!
¡felicidades!
angello5002 3 years ago
ঔღঔ bio21 how i can thank u ঔღঔ
ঔღঔ am very happy to see this vidoe ঔღঔ
ঔღঔ relly God biggest than we think ঔღঔ
ঔღঔ thank u very much ঔღঔ
7anadi 3 years ago
really chemistry bigger than we think...
ionz75 3 years ago 2
why can't you just enjoy it without the God part?
pedroyfinal 3 years ago
Some people find that hard to do.
TheBirdsGoTweet 3 years ago
Fascinating
letsutoobe 3 years ago 3
avrei fato la replicazione più lentamente,niente male l'assemblaggio degli ottameri e delle fibre da 10 e da 30 nm peccato manchi trascrizione splicing e traduzione
asabadino 3 years ago
stupid piece of crude, rn is soo much better then dn
sprinkleOFkawaii 3 years ago
I loved this video
secularscholar 3 years ago 2
Sounds are funny but match. Good job.
polloalforno 3 years ago
Amazing!.
Congratulations. 5 stars.
Anyone know which insect is this?
watch?v=LmfXg-7NX5A
carlessants 3 years ago
amazing..i love this stuff.
jhoa001 3 years ago
It's the best molecular biology animation I've ever seen! The shape of the molecules is based on structure analysis and electron microscopy!
wonderfull graphicdesign!
FRACTALCHEMISTRY 3 years ago 2
Yay okazaki fragments.
CarlGauss 3 years ago
OKAZAKI FRAGMENTS! I never get to say that.
chocotofu3 3 years ago
how can i see DNA?? at my mcroscope???
levipieterowner 3 years ago
That's gonna be one big microscope...an electron microscope?
igystrvigy 3 years ago
You could build a Scanning Tunnelling Microscope for about twenty bucks if you know how to work an oscilloscope. Sorry but that's a negatory on the optical microscope being able to see DNA.
agenttachyon 3 years ago
Electron microscope? No way. Too powerful. You do realize that you can see DNA with the naked eye? If you condense it up, it looks like a tiny, tiny sliver of egg white.
chocotofu3 3 years ago
No way! That's cool. But what kind of magnification would one need to get down to the individual pairs?
igystrvigy 3 years ago
Looks very random to me.
partypeoplediedie 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
is it real or wat??
whatsthisgoinon 3 years ago
Yes.
tomsixsix 3 years ago
no it isent u stupid dumbass
usman2hype92 3 years ago
You seem to be raised by hillbillies or something 'cause you have no respect for other people. Not everyone knows biology, so calling them dumbasses is very uncalled for.
sockerbetan 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
heh... after all this, people still do not believe in God.. Nice Vid.
empire8281 3 years ago
pffff
pedroyfinal 3 years ago
very cool....i've been lookin around for a vid that explains how dna functions.very informative.
cawley777 3 years ago 3