How about a course on how to discern and verify the accuracy of the model ?

@@paddlefar9175 I would like to have a new house with a parking garage for the new car too for free.😁

This might be the coolest thing I have seen in a very long time.

This is crazy stuff! :)

This course changed my life, thanks 🙏

@Electro_blob 2 it could, but it's so unprobable that id rather believe a sentient space pizza engineered it.

@Electro_blob 2 A bunch of space gas (plasma) didn't turn into this. At *least* 99.9999999% of it is still space plasma or rocks. Entropy on Earth may have gone down, but the entropy of the rest of the universe has steadily been increasing. Life has been on a treadmill running from it for three billion years. @David Vega Blasphemy!! We all know that the true heavenly Italian food is his noodliness!

lol life isnt fighting against the entropy of the universe. Life is something the Universe itself is doing.

@@lordoftheflings life is about survival. maximum entropy means no more life. which means in a way life IS about fighting entropy.

@@lordoftheflings Yeah, the Universe did kinda create life, but it's also trying to constantly destroy it. Like humanity.

When you study Electron Transport Chain, 2 forces make that C-Protein rotate. First is the Concentration Gradient, Second is the Electrical Gradient (Negative Inside in the matrix, and positive on the intermembrane). Those 2 forces make the C-Protein rotate just like how Air rotates windmills, and Water rotates motors in dams. In the process they clamp ADP and Phosphate to become ATP. Simple.

well in my book (German version of "Fundamentals of Biochemistry - Life at the Molecular Level. Fith edition" by Donald Voet, Judith G. Voet and Charlotte W. Pratt) the reason for the rotation of the c-ring, im parafracing and translating here, is due to a conformational change in the c subunits caused by binding a proton. And possibly some electrostatic forces.

@@Nobbu thats right thats what the other reply said aswell, voet possibly the best biochemistry book imo

You sound like a physics major.

@@hadrielvalentino may you explain to me the concentration and electrical gradient?

Proton minigun

7800 RPM, like a high-performance engine.

Only? I was expecting it to go around at millions or billions rotations a second

@@_John_P i was expecting it to turn 1rph

@@eien7228 Why?

I always saw cells like that: tiny bio-machines

It literally is a molecular machine. A molecule that interconverts chemical energy and mechanical movement. Only in the last few decades chemistry has started to create artificial, synthesized molecular machines. The pioneers of this area won the Nobel prize a few years ago. It's a really fascinating subject.

By design

I cannot fathom what steps this went through to evolve like this.

@@jackb3493 a whole lot of failure for a whole lot of years

About 33 times per second. About 2000 rpm... Nice

@@mkrzyzowski 130 rps. In some species, it can spin more than 700 times per second.

@@jascrandom9855 Wow. Pritty fast. I expect those spieces live fast and die fast. Is not that?

@@mkrzyzowski No idea.

This is happening at the quantum level so it's not like you can draw analogies to our macroscopic world. The molecules wiggle around as fast as quantum mechanics wants them to.

No offense but you understand shit. There is nothing chemical about chemistry, its interactions or ATP synth. Its ALL electric. Its the "protons" in the simulations, little space for papa Hydrogen. For some miracle it does briefly mention CHARGE activation and hell yeah, notice how there is no OXYGEN anywhere!! For the next time they bluff you its AIR you breath, when its really the electric connection to the mighty BLACK (electric) SUN. Remember the AETHER Einstein erased only to change nothing but to put his stupid name upon...the freaking space-time! Told ya.... little truth and it sounds utterly insane to thee :D. Still better then the official crap, thermodynamics vs gravity driven universe :D

Yes, Jep! And while these one-in-a-million fortuitously thermodynamically favorable structures were miraculously synthesized by blind chance, something probably even more complex conveniently destroyed all the evolutionaly mistakes that logic demands occurred a million or billion times for each fortuitous chemical mechanism that came along.

@@robertecarpenter and Jep- Is it perhaps not so blind that something so complex and fortuitous occurs billions of times with precision? The implication is a process designed intelligently and deliberately. But I am replying with a straight response. Perhaps you were being sarcastic and wanted to rhetorically indicate the same thing. 😁

@@thomascutlip6711 yes, Thomas. I was being sarcastic. to think that billions of fortuitous mutations could accidently form something as complex as the TP Synthase motor, is ludicrous. That means that trillions of detrimental mutations would also have occurred. Did they just magically vanish? Did some guiding hand dispose of them while gathering and directing the good mutations toward a goal? I agree with you 100%. This incredible, irreducible complexity cries out for an inexpressibly intelligent Creator.

@@robertecarpenter 1) That means that trillions of detrimental mutations would also have occurred. Did they just magically vanish? No, they simply were not successful, so probably died. 2) Did some guiding hand dispose of them while gathering and directing the good mutations toward a goal? No, the bad ones simply were not as good at surviving, therefore died. The good ones were betters, so they lived.

Did you say highschool???? You think this is highschool stuff?

@@justinbishop54 bruh 😭 i wish this wasn’t high school stuff for me, we had one week to make a video project of how ATP synthase works

I am watching this in my 10th grade😅

@@justinbishop54 I wish it wasn't! 😥

@@bijaya1109 8th

it's complicated but not difficult, it helps to compartmentalize the subject matter...personally, i watch the video -- the 1st time, in its entirety, then i replay it... hear a point, pause and reflect, making certain i understand each point right down to the the verbrasity ...then cont when you feel you understand it. i'm auditing the course and although i already have a background in science, i find the course stimulating; especially when i pass each test with flying colors

@@Carlzday yeah I agree it's not actually a complicated concept it's just an in depth explanation you could have learned this in high school

This video cured your erectile dysfunction ?

thank you

The first phosphate that attaches to the sugar is by an ester bond. The consequent 2 other bonds would be anhydride bond.

@@praneeroop a phosphoester bond not phosphodiester bond though

Gorgeous illustration, wasn't it? This is the best kind of biochem animation. Super.

NERD

Look up the bacterial flagellar motor 😅

Oh, Please!

Time magic of course

through billions of years of trial and error and even now it is imperfect

@@user-su8wo4cc4uhow is it imperfect hahah

Why 99?

@@lennintapia6761 heat, you can't be 100% efficient

Tell me when it gets to 100 and we're immortal

Holy shit!

Is there a catylizt?..this surprised me..are many bio - systems that effecient ? I'm used to 30-40 % ..

@@paddlefar9175 But chemistry is dictated by the physics.

Biology is Chemistry with context Chemistry is Physics with context Physics is Maths with context

Maths is logic with context

No all living organism have these

@@sklefenz Nothing in his comment suggested otherwise.

@@sklefenz not all organisms are as complex

@silent-lee It's still at 69 lmao

This is what i call a nerd comment section. My deepest admiration

Just scrolled through the comments to see if anyone had already pointed that out. Thanks to you! I guess if you want to know if there is possibly anything wrong with anything you made → subject it to the criticism on the interwebs. xD

I wish I understood this stuff a lot more 😭😭😭 I feel so uneducated 😭🤐😔

i'm surprised wheels exist in nature

There is some really damn cool animations of DNA duplication and protein synthesis that are even better. made than this. I. really recommend looking that up.

Chemistry is just atomic physics. Not sure why they're split into separate arbitrary "fields".

@@dolebiscuit I think of it more like a nested hierarchy, simply because knowledge itself is such a vast 'field', that it can be sub-divided quite a lot just to make it manageable for us to comprehend. For example, the entire 'field' of biology is contained within just a subset of organic chemistry.

Evolution had hundreds of millions of years to find through trial and error what works the best.

@@DoctressCalibrator You need way more faith in the religion of evolution than intelligent design.

@@46I37 Sounds like something someone without any knowledge of evolution would say.

@@DoctressCalibrator well, I've design complex electronics systems for 30 years, and that requires meticulous intelligence. These systems are orders of magnitude more complex in design complexity. No way that's happening through random mutation. Irreducible complexity is the first of many nails in the coffin of evolution.

@46l37 And how many years of experience do you have studying the evolution? I'll take a wild guess at the number being "zero". If it actually was intelligent design, would we be seeing incredibly stupid ways evolution had gone to because of heredity? Recurrent laryngeal nerve, for example, or our own spine and thigh joints? Why is RNA used in the rhibosome, when everything else catalyst-related is built out of much more reliable and stable proteins, leading to significantly increased difficulty in assembly and reduced durability of rhibosomes compared to their theoretical protein-based counterparts? Look at how huge it is compared to any purely protein-based enzyme complexes like ATP-synthase, DNA and RNA polymerase, or even the chaperone complex. Yet despite its blatant issues, not only is it the primary protein-assembling enzyme system for all cellular life we know, it's quite possibly the most conservative element of translatable DNA code. How, precisely, is your lack of knowledge in the field of biology allows for such arrogance that you're willing to utterly dismiss some 3.5 billion years of biochemical change before we get to the common ancestors of these molecular systems, or centuries of work done by people before your field of work even appeared with the invention of the transistor, and continually done to this day? Good old Dannig-Krueger strikes again, it would seem, and knowledge from a tangentially related field leads to belief that you somehow know MORE than generations of people who dedicated their entire careers to it. Know what it looks like? Waltzing into an engineering meeting for CPU production, and telling them that they are idiots for working on an x86 processor because it's "CISC". There are *incredible* amounts of utter, *utter* stupidity that got retained in the evolution process simply because there's no Ctrl-Z, on all organisation levels, from molecular to organism. But no, no way these molecular mechanisms could appear in the over 4 *billion years* that life existed for in some form, sure. EDIT: Wrong reply tag.

get out todd, enough internet today for you.

And designed it is.

Hay 👏👏👏

do you believe in evolution after that?

@@user-nx7xx7rf1h you can read my article on habr about that: Эволюция - религия современности

I agree. It's not so much what the thing does but that it knows what and how it suppose to do these things.

@@kyleebrahim8061 it doesn't "know" it does because if it didn't it wouldn't exist. life is self asembling and therefore inevitable on earth-like planets and with milions of years of trial and error natural selection all but guarantees complex life

@@dr.cheeze5382 there's no proof for self assembling life but if you have it and it attains to the human species I'll be open to it and if you can name an earth like plant while you're at it

Could you explain it? I’m interested to learn about that

@@captainhd9741 I don’t understand it either, that’s why I’m baffled that scientists were able to figure it out

@@toku_u Whatever you said, it sounds hella cool

It's not really that crazy to imagine. Humans already use evolutionary algorithms in ML and they learn pretty wild stuff. If we imagine that one of the most significant evolutionary pressures would be energy metabolism, then it makes sense that evolution would learn it complex machinery to make it as efficient as it can. There are five million trillion trillion bacteria on Earth right now. In a sense, the nature is running the largest parallel learning algorithm at scales it's hard to even comprehend. Plus, a lot of the stuff we, humans, use is pretty ancient, even our psychology relies on ancient biological machinery. Once a useful building block is found it is used for many things and eventually more complex building blocks are found. This is why we can study facts about human memory on creatures as different from us as fruit flies, or find that c elegans has neurotransmitters like dopamine or serotonin.

Imagine shaking a bag full of gears for at least 14 billion years, what about 500 trillion years if it could be possible for these to escape relapse in reformation of universes

"Foisting these miracles off on supernatural or extra terrestrial intelligence is ridiculous." Actually, 'foisting' this on a supernatural intelligence is the simple, occam's razor answer. It takes incredible mental gymnastics (and many years of indoctrination) to so easily credit evolution with this. If you can realistically lay out the step-by-step evolution of such a system (and every other highly complex system), along with reasonable evidence that your 'just-so' stories actually took place, only then can you start to say that evolutionary explanations get anywhere close to being as plausible as supernatural explanations. Paul wrote 2000 years ago that creation makes it obvious that there is a God. 150+ years of mind-blowing scientific discovery could not more powerfully reinforce such a notion.

@@MyLuggage12345 No, it's not. Because then you still have the same problem of apperance of that supernatural intelligence, you just push it on another level. You don't want to believe that biological machinery appeared by itself and want to believe that it was created, yet you believe that God - the thing presumably a lot more complex and powerful that this biological machinery as to be able to create it - appeared out of nowhere by itself. Moreover, if you go the creation route, why not say that there exist a Supergod too, which created God which created the universe? Or Меgagod which created Supergod which created God, which created the universe? This is how spawning unnecessary entities looks like. It's just easier to say that the universe appeared by itself or always existed, than spawning additional entities which would also have to either always exist or appear by themselves.

Whether or not random evolution produced life in all its manifestations, the marvelous thing is not that life appeared, but that life is possible. To expand on this point: the marvelous thing about reality is not its contents, but its inherent (essentially unknown) possibilities. I think that, if there is a God, theologians miss the mark by designating him/her/it as pure actuality. Far greater (infinite?) is pure potentiality, which likely is not constrained by what science presently tells us about the universe. Bottom line: I designate the infinite potential of the universe as God; whether he/she/it is also intelligent as we define the term, and is monitoring and/or directing events, is beyond our ken.

Yes, it is similar to learning that Moon does rotate yet we only side the fixed side. Explaining it in text with illustrations makes it difficult to comprehend, but using physical models works.

you should be proficient in cell theory in in under two years...to understand cell biology with respect to fully understanding cellular dynamics and fundamental biochemistry, 4 years... to become a molecular and Cellular Biologist, or other specialties like a Forensic Pathologist, Hematologist, Oncologists or Biochemist... you're looking at 8 year plus another 4+ years -- depending on the fellowship, and even then, it's ongoing -- forever leaning new things everyday

Biology has no need for that hypothesis.

Blender. 3D studio max, Rhino, Maya..... long list

atp synthase is on the mitochondria I believe

New England Yes its located on the inner membrane of the mitochondria, if I remember correctly.

Hi

I had to leaf through scores of comments before I found this: it's the first thing that comes to my mind when I watch.

A enzima é que nem uma roda d' água... O gradiente de prótons no espaço intermembrana é o rio... Ele roda a parte de baixo da enzima, e força a entrada de íons pra dentro da matriz mitocondrial. Lá eles se acoplam nas subunidades beta, juntamente com a molécula de ADP. ADP + Fosfato inorgânico= ATP É o motor da vida!! 😂👍

At what time did time create time?

@@hfarthingt That's an invalid recursive question. Simpliest answer, time is an intrinsic part of space/time and did not create itself.

Your homework would slowly decompose into dust and no amount of chaos would even begin to attempt to start it. But you knew that already.

@@SpaceCadet4Jesus Similarly, no amount of chaos would ever attempt to build up even a single cell. The complexity of graphene marks on a piece of paper is infinitesimally less than the complexity of the simplest living organism.

Only if your homework reproduces.

Why this comment got no more likes??

@silent-lee You do not understand what abiogenesis or evolution is, so you mock it.

@silent-lee life is way more Complex than iPhone

MrNiceguy... "... I still find it so incredible how such things evolved... " ... have you calculating the odds? I'm curious. Thanks.

Enjoy your PhD man, its an awesome time!

They didn't evolve. Watch Dr. James Tour's videos on abiogenisis, rather the lack of feasibility of it taking place.

@@HuFlungDung2 You are conflating two separate theories. Abiogenesis requires evolution, but evolution does not require abiogenesis. You claim that it does not exist, yet the alternate hypothesis is the unfalsifiable idea of an unobservable entity that simple drags the question further back. Who created God? The creationist simply hand-waves the requirement for proof whilst in the same breath requesting proof of abiogenesis.

@@xero2715 Without abiogenisis, evolution as the origin of biological function is dead. Arguing that you can make a case for luck to create living entities is foolishness. Intelligent design cannot arise without information which directs the creation of living entities.

It would be a frantic blur of whizzing activity, and this simulation is slowed-down in the extreme. But this is all academic anyway as human vision wouldn't work at such tiny scales, even if somehow shrunk to molecular levels.

@@hgbnkbggj2915 yup. I know that. That's not my point though. Thanks for playing along, the receptionist will give you your gift bag on the way out.

"We" The average person wouldn't even dream of something like this 🤣 these things are basically discovered by geniuses or really smart people who work in groups to understand, then this info is presented to the average person, some understand and some don't.

A germam guy curiosity, embrace it my friend.

2:09am here brother, no idea either.

Its 5am, and I´m still up watching this for an 11th-grade paper

but do you still atheist after this video?

@@user-nx7xx7rf1h Yes. This video alone is not enough to convince me otherwise. In fact, it actually strengthens my position.

ChronoSquare 70 years of advanced research by thousands of PhD level researchers at full time on the subject ...

@@SEVideoQuant Hi I was going to ask the same thing but fearing a generalistic answer, it´s not like your are wrong, off course that´s absolutely right, BUT I would like to know something more about the process of discovering this type of things, do you know where I can find scientific divulgation for normal people like me to undesrtand how is the process to figure this kind of abstract and contraintuitive stuff for our normal brains? Because if a normal person can understand the process and the logic of the researchers maybe the same normal person will truly value their work and it would be a less flat earth person and a more logic person, don´t you think?

titow205 What is your school level (depending on your answer i will propose you different books).

Read the original research papers on ATP synthesis

@@SEVideoQuant Hi! I'm a 4th semester student of Biotechnology. You got any recommendations?

By chance? Why by chance? It’s a strange concept. Should have stop a just happens. Better yet leave just out and just let it happen.

the only people that say anything about 'chance' or 'randomness' are the creationists/ intelligent design proponents. evolution is not a random process.

@@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep logic, chaos, rationality, irrationality... these are all concepts thought up and named by homo sapiens. are we even talking about evolution anymore?

@@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep that's basically what i asked you. present a coherent argument or question and we can move on.

A few billion years is a long time for chemistry to get its shit together

There are many examples that speak against intelligent design, like in human anatomy (see wikipedia 'argument from poor design'). So why would anyone who can create something so complex, screw up so badly in other (far less complex) areas? Explain that to me ;)

@@jamaly77 First off thank you for giving me the Wikipedia reference to give me something to work off (: not many people cite stuff that's worthy these days lol But to start I'd like to say that hypothetically, if God did make man in his likeness, and then let people procreate for a BOATLOAD of generations after the fall of man, surely in the passing down of genetic information over and over and over and over again, some stuff would mess up.. Everything decays at some rate that is affirmed by science. The fact that we are still able to pop kids out and have them turn into people that can think live and breath like you and me is INCREDIBLE. But as for the arguments from poor design. If you read that again you will notice something that stood out to me immediately.. everything in that is related to humans is either a "rarely" or a "barely" idea The fact that *some* babies need C sections would not prove that birth itself is poorly designed, it would make sense that perfect information has degraded to no longer be as efficient as it was after so many generations of humans infected with sin (please note that's my opinion:) For the wisdom teeth portion, it says in the bible (I have to use this as my source lol but don't discount this soley for that) that people lived to be around 900 years old pre-flood. If that is the case then humans would've had a lot of time to grow and change. If wisdom teeth now cause problems, it doesn't necessarily mean they did for our ancestors. "Barely used nerves and muscles" once again, just because we don't need them now doesn't mean we didn't used to. I mean yeah muscles around the ears probably didn't do too much but I don't think anything 'good' would come out of losing em. The muscles in the foot being useless now could be a product of micro-evolution, (which is a proven force in nature, we have seen it) because of shoes and not needing to chase prey on foot as much. The appendix is a poor argument against creation because you are more susceptible to diseases without it, and we probably used to eat a lot of wild things that could've needed that extra push from the immune system and intestines. But that last bit is just my thought For the argument of our eyes having blood vessels in the front whereas cephalopods have them in the back.. we live on land where the only thing we have to protect our eyes from the sun is the air it has to pass through, if those blood vessels were not there to stop the bulk of the days from hitting our retinas, we would go blind relatively quickly. You don't want a squids eyeball trust me. The whale bones argument about then having vestigal old leg bones from then having used to walk on land, is debunked very quickly when you learn that those bones are there for muscles to connect to, and hold their massive whale cocks when theyre mating lol. They need those bones to have an anchor point for their reproductive system. Why that is still in that wiki idk bc that's a fact jack ;) lol You could argue all day that the body has flaws, mine does, yours does, everyone pretty much does. But I don't see how that would take away from intelligent design. The video you just watched INSANE. Like how does all that work without any of those things having brains. It just does it. It's a machine. And the whole ATP stuff is just a drop in the infinite bucket of incredible things that work together. Watch videos on reproductive systems and on how the atmosphere works and magnetic fields and all that jazz, it's just not logical to think that all came from nothing from nowhere and just kinda happened. Sorry if these ideas and stuff aren't well put together or organized I'm just kinda sitting in bed and typing on my phone but you know how that goes :)

​@@bandrewsonp5379 Although I don’t believe in creationism, these type of things do question my understanding of evolutionary biology.

@@thatguyjohnny8235 God didn't create man in his likeness. Most probably, God is a collection of Subatomic particles. They created themselves in their own likeness at the beginning of the Universe. The rest is history.

The answer is surprisingly simple - it wasn’t created chaos and randomness.