I recently received a message from someone who had a fascinating video on transcription, which he wanted to share with people he knew. The video, titled “The Central Dogma,” was produced by the RIKEN Omics Science Center for the exhibition titled ‘Beyond DNA’ held at National Science Museum of Japan, and can also be viewed here. Readers are invited to form their own conclusions. Any further comment on my part would be superfluous: the old adage that a picture is worth a thousand words was never truer than for the video you are about to watch. Here’s the Youtube video:
30 Replies to “RIKEN’s 10-minute antidote to atheism: see for yourself”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Amazing video. It screams advanced intelligence and design.
That was amazing! It absolutely leaves me in awe to see God’s handiwork. Natural selection acting on random mutations! Are you kidding me! Give credit where credit is due!
Wow!
nice video, but let’s just remember this is an oversimplified description of the real thing.
Over my head and complex, so God!
VJT: Another useful animation. You may want to embed using the TV symbol and the YouTube ID, ygpqVr7_xs. The spaceship-factory style reminds us of just how advanced this is as a manufacturing process. We need to ponder the FSCO/I involved and what that is pointing to — remember, the details have to be just as correct as the overall architecture, on all scales. This is serious design here, so far beyond the plausible reach of blind chance and mechanical necessity based searches in config spaces that the need for advanced design to reasonably explain it should be patent. But, if you undermine first principles of reason, then grossly inadequate causes can be perceived as good enough. Therein lies a big challenge. KF
Hi kairosfocus,
Done! I’ve embedded the Youtube version of the video, as you suggested. Thanks for the tip.
The simulation of the mechanical processes is amazing in itself. What must the communication simulation showing the necessary orchestration taking place of all the supporting events and players look like, especially in a crowded environment of a single cell within a 100 trillion cell organism? It would probably make the communication activity in the largest city on the planet sound like the proverbial chirping crickets on a cold winters night.
Nah… Mapou. The watchmaker got his sight back, and got the necessary info from an alien belonging to an advanced civilisation. From a multiworld.
It’s clear you guys aren’t familiar with the wonders of REAL modern scientific research.
Paging Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins… Paging Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins…. (not to speak of Messrs Meier, Dennett, Carroll et al. And Uncle Tom Cobley, of course).
Here are a few suggestions for the atheists looking at this video:
1. Before you watch the video, pour yourself a nice glass of wine or other adult beverage of your choice.
2. Watch the video while sipping.
3. If you make it through the video without spilling your adult beverage, great … now take a few deep breaths.
4. Do your rant about “they’re shoving that religion crap down my throat.”
5. A few more deep breaths and another glass or two of the favorite adult beverage.
Now this is where it gets really … really hard.
6. If you are calmed down, then repeat steps 1-5 above – else repeat steps 1-5 above until you have calmed down somewhat.
7. Ask yourself the following questions:
“If this animation is mostly accurate in describing what is happening even as I sit here … what are the implications to me personally? What are the implications of this animation to my world view?”
8. Let this whole episode simmer within you for a respectable amount of time. Results may vary.
Extra credit.
If you are ready for more, then do:
9. Repeat steps 1-8 above, only this time watch the video at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbycQf1TbM0
10. If after a reasonable time (days, weeks or even months)you experience no noticeable effects of the above 9 steps, then drink much … much more of your favorite adult beverage and continue watching Bill Nye “The Science Guy.”
awstar
🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
Was this video produced by a bunch of ignorant folks who don’t understand ‘n-D evo’? Why did they make such a propagandistic animation trying to force the rest of us to believe that the biological systems are so complex and sophisticated? What is their agenda? Is there any factual evidence to support this video? Is it peer-reviewed?
ayearningforpublius #11
Can’t stop laughing out loud
Really funny
Thanks
ayearningforpublius #11
Suggestions for step 1: Chianti Classico or Rioja Crianza
Default drink for conclusion of step 10: Kool-Aid
Serious question here.
I know this is just an animation, but someone tell me why it’s not an actual video from some sort of microscope or wiz bang gadget? Is it because what’s happening in the cell lies outside current visual technology? If so, then what is the basis for constructing the animation? What indirect means provides the basis for such an animation?
Gosh … that was 4 questions wasn’t it?
Here’s another video from RIKEN
what is the basis for constructing the animation?
Exactly. I will assume the basic point is correct, but who invented all that CGI ? All those lovely machine-like things. I think reality is far messier, and its animations like this that play right into the hands of the creationists.
“its animations like this that play right into the hands of the creationists”
LOL,,, Its a conspiracy I tell you!!! Creationists sticking all those molecular machines in cells like that just to make Darwinists look bad! 🙂
We have always underestimated cells. Undoubtedly we still do today. But at least we are no longer as naïve as we were when I was a graduate student in the 1960s. Then, most of us viewed cells as containing a giant set of second-order reactions: molecules A and B were thought to diffuse freely, randomly colliding with each other to produce molecule AB — and likewise for the many other molecules that interact with each other inside a cell. This seemed reasonable because, as we had learned from studying physical chemistry, motions at the scale of molecules are incredibly rapid. Consider an enzyme, for example. If its substrate molecule is present at a concentration of 0.5mM,which is only one substrate molecule for every 105 water molecules, the enzyme’s active site will randomly collide with about 500,000 molecules of substrate per second. And a typical globular protein will be spinning to and fro, turning about various axes at rates corresponding to a million rotations per second.
But, as it turns out, we can walk and we can talk because the chemistry that makes life possible is much more elaborate and sophisticated than anything we students had ever considered. Proteins make up most of the dry mass of a cell. But instead of a cell dominated by randomly colliding individual protein molecules, we now know that nearly every major process in a cell is carried out by assemblies of 10 or more protein molecules. And, as it carries out its biological functions, each of these protein assemblies interacts with several other large complexes of proteins. Indeed, the entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines.”
(Bruce Alberts, “The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists,” Cell, 92 (February 6, 1998): 291-294)
Too bad they referred to it as the “Central Dogma” — an idea that has been responsible for a fair amount of misunderstanding over the years. Could have just called it protein synthesis, or something like that.
—-
Graham2:
I know you like to point out that things are messy, but it is unclear what your point is. Are you arguing that because things are messy then they don’t evidence design? And by “messy” presumably you are referring to the facts that: (i) lots of other processes are taking place simultaneously in the cell (which by any rational approach would increase the impression of design), and (ii) many processes in the cell occur in a stochastic, rather than a definite 1:1 streamlined fashion (which by any rational approach would also impress the objective observer that a stochastic mechanism could be engineered to achieve a definite singular outcome in so many situations).
So, what is you point with the “messiness” of cellular processes?
EA: Im not denying any details of the process, but the machines in the video looked like nice manufactured products, complete with lettering on the sides, all proceeding in a nice, regular, stately manner, just like the machines we are familiar with.
Ive no idea what they would look like in reality, (if they ‘look’ at all) but I presume (based on some actual images) that their motions would be extremely chaotic, completely lacking (obvious) purpose. I repeat, Im not denying the general points being made, but the appearance seems completely unrealistic. Its a perception thing.
If anything, it understates the difficulty of what is going on. There is a lot of thermal and quantum noise. It is like a tornado in the cell with all the machines miraculously resisting the disordering battering of Brownian motion. Further where are the guidance and propulsion systems for these components? If Brownian motion provides some of the “propulsion”, how is guidance and timing and traffic management accomplished?
The video said the introns are un-necessary. That’s not exactly true. They may not be used by the ribosome to code the protein amino acids, but they may have regulatory significance in coordinating the process. I consider that the one undesirable aspect of the video, it’s treatment of introns a unnecessary junk.
They are only superficially chaotic, if they are actually chaotic with no directionality, you’d be dead!
Graham2: “Im not denying any details of the process, but the machines in the video looked like nice manufactured products, complete with lettering on the sides, all proceeding in a nice, regular, stately manner, just like the machines we are familiar with.” & ” . . but the appearance seems completely unrealistic.”
This is how the true art of teaching is masterfully accomplished, but means of illustrations from familiar situations. If this video were invented for the purpose of strictly promoting evolution theory, we wouldn’t be hearing a peep out of you or others.
Scordova: “If anything, it understates the difficulty of what is going on.”
Precisely. It doesn’t begin to explain or express the true meaning of what goes on in a tiny complex nano-machine level and it never claims to. All it accomplishes is explaining through visuals what the system does accomplish on an extremely slowed down level, but as we know, the reality is that such systems work on a faster than supercomputer speed.
The funny thing is, you know full well that all the Evos actually do get this, but resent it. And though they do get it, they will never admit this publicly. It’s almost an unwritten rule or code of silence they follow when participating in debate.
F/N: Where did such, such, such “Creationist porn” videos come from . . . shouldn’t they be banned as religious propaganda?
H’mm, try about 60 years worth of molecular biology research, and mix in several Nobel Prizes along the way.
Then, add technologies that begin to build on that growing insight and the need to shift biology courses in College and High school in that light, to reflect those facts.
Oops, kids just are not going to read reams of dry and complex, highly confusing formulae and worse names, what do we do?
Use scientific visualisation and animation, that’s what.
Whoops, that gives sharp point to what those Creationists and IDiots are talking about when they discuss functionally specific complex organisation and information.
So, the likes of XVIVO — which of course intellectual property stuff was used to ban from “abuse” by those nasty “Creationists” . . . especially the ones in “cheap tuxedos.” (Remember how they tried to see if the sequence in Expelled was copied, only to realise nope it was a roll yer own with different angles etc?)
But also, the knowledge base is now widespread so there are any number of animations out there.
The reaction to this one (which I remember seeing years ago and not liking as it was a bit too space-ships for my taste) shows that the point is hitting home.
But in fact the protein synthesis sequence has been in animations for years and has appeared here at UD many, many times in many ways. My favourite is Vuk Nikolic’s animation, which has been featured and headlined here at UD any number of times over the past few years.
Long ago, there was a nice clay animation simple sequence that showed much the same point, and who can forget Wikipedia’s beautiful image of the Ribosome in action with the mRNA NC tape running through and the protein being assembled AA by AA?
And of course we haven’t got into the far more complex issue of the self-replication process of the cell, which implements a von Neumann Self Replicator.
The videos etc are simplified, but he point hey make is very much on target, there is a world of technology in the cell that dwarfs anything we have done and makes our automation look primitive.
Nigh on thirty years ago, here is Dr Michael Denton in Evolution, a Theory in Crisis:
Time to face facts, folks.
KF
PS: VJT, welcome.
G2: guess why “the machines in the video looked like nice manufactured products, complete with lettering on the sides.” Yup, you got it, you just made a design inference on FSCO/I. Congratulations, and welcome to the world of the design inference on empirically reliable sign. KF
18 Graham2
ok, first let’s take a quick look at the grammar:
probably means:
“…and it’s animations like this that…”
Please, see comment #4, i.e. 14 comments before yours 😉
Please, see comment #13, i.e. 5 comments before yours 😉
The answer to your question might be RIKEN, which apparently is one of the many ID agitprop agents the DI has all over the world.
Graham2 is not the only Darwinist who would like to see the cell look a lot less ‘purposeful’ than it is turning out to be. In this article by Jonathan Wells from a few months ago, Darwinists, trying to counter the impression of Design that the animation ‘Inner Life of the Cell’ created, admitted to trying, in a new animation, to make the cell look as chaotic as possible,,
As to what molecular machines really look. and act. like, it seems the videos showing these machines to be ‘bumpy’, and showing their motion as ‘barely constrained randomness’, are gross misrepresentations of what is actually going on in the cell, and that the ‘smoothness’ in the current video in the OP may be far closer to the truth than we realize. To make my case for ‘smoothness’ rather than ‘barely constrained randomeness’, here are a few pertinent points of evidence.
First, it is important to note that the atomic model, which is the basis for inferring that the molecular machines are ‘bumpy’ instead of smooth, is basically a fallacious 19th, and early twentieth, century construct that has drastically changed from the ‘bumpy billiard ball’ model to a far smoother ‘quantum cloud’ model,,,
For anyone who still believes that atoms are composed of little billiard ball type particles (i.e. Reductive Materialism as it was conceived of by ancient Greeks and was only recently overturned last century), the following images will cure you of that false materialistic notion:
Some materialists may claim that it is still OK to use variations of the materialistic billiard ball model when constructing models of protein macro-molecules, and when constructing models of molecular machines, such as the following ‘bumpy’ representations of protein macro-molecule and molecular machine,,
But are these ‘bumpy billiard ball’ models of proteins macro-molecules and molecular machines accurate and fair representations of what proteins and molecular machines actually look like? or are they false representations? i.e. Is a more accurate representation of proteins and molecular machines to be had by a ‘smooth’ quantum model?? I hold that a smooth quantum model is a more accurate representation of what is going on in the cell:
To try to make my contention for ‘smoothness’ in the cell more concrete, first it is important to note that quantum entanglement/information resides along the entirety of a protein molecule (and of a DNA molecule but we will leave that aside for now),,,
Moreover, protein folding is found to be a quantum process, and is not a classical process that is driven by random Brownian motion as the materialist holds,,,
But as they say, seeing is believing. Here is a ‘Electron Microscope Photograph of Flagellum Hook-Basal Body’, and I can see no ‘bumpiness’ in the photograph of the molecular machine as the models and animations suggested:
As to the contention of materialists that the motion of molecular machines are ‘jittery’, well the motion of a flagellum, and other molecular machines, are found to be governed by quantum principles not by classical principles:
Moreover, the way in which proteins, which are separated in the cell, communicate with each other is found to be a precisely controlled quantum/photonic process, and communication in the cell is not mediated primarily by proteins ‘randomly colliding into each other’ by Brownian motion,,,
Needless to say, that certainly does not sound like protein molecules randomly colliding into each other as the materialists would like to believe!
Of related note:
Amazing!
But what SHOULD trouble materialists the most in all this is that quantum entanglement conclusively demonstrates that ‘information’ in its pure ‘quantum form’ is completely transcendent of any time and space constraints (Bell Aspect, Leggett, Zeilinger, etc..)
That quantum entanglement should be found in molecular biology on such a massive scale is a direct empirical falsification of Darwinian claims, for how can the quantum entanglement ‘effect’ in biology possibly be explained by a material (matter/energy) ’cause’ when the quantum entanglement ‘effect’ falsified material particles as its own causation in the first place? Appealing to the probability of various ‘random’ configurations of material particles, as Darwinism does, simply will not help since a timeless/spaceless cause must be supplied which is beyond the capacity of the material particles themselves to supply!
In other words, to give a coherent explanation for an effect that is shown to be completely independent of any time and space constraints one is forced to appeal to a cause that is itself not limited to time and space! i.e. Put more simply, you cannot explain a effect by a cause that has been falsified by the very same effect you are seeking to explain! Improbability arguments of various ‘special’ configurations of material particles, which have been a staple of the arguments against neo-Darwinism, simply do not apply since the cause is not within the material particles in the first place!
Besides providing direct empirical falsification of neo-Darwinian claims as to the generation of information, the implication of finding ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, and ‘conserved’ quantum information in molecular biology on a massive scale is fairly, and pleasantly, obvious:
Verse and Music:
My guess is that this is slowed down so we can see and get a shallow understanding of what is really going on.
Does anyone know just how fast all that might take? The video was 10 minutes, but my guess would be seconds.
Just curious.
That would have been an interesting fact to put in the video.
I understand Graham’s point. I too was taken back by the lego-like machines. I have seen other animations that try and show the machines a bit more lifelike and they aren’t smooth sleek machines. However, they are built to do the job. The purpose of the machines is not to look cool in the eyes of 21st century humans, but to accomplish the job they were designed for so their “looks” really isn’t a big deal.