Check out this breathtaking video: http://www.studiodaily.com/main/technique/tprojects/6850.html
Great animation but I wish it was ten times as long and included a commentary. There is a lot of stuff going on. Even those really in the know will pick up only some of it.
I am interested how in these animations, the right base, sugar or amino acid just happens to float by at the moment it is needed. Does this really happen? Do the right enzymes just float around in cellular space waiting for a chance meeting with their substrate?
I like the concept they describe in the article that thinking about doing the animation helped them think of what research areas should be investigated.
Animations like these should make students think about whether ID is as silly as the science powermen tell them.
It looks like something that a Hollywood producer to use in a sci-fi film depicting an advanced civilization.
And to think that all that fine tunned high tech system came into existence by random events, filtered by non-random death(“natural selection”).
I wonder if Dave Thomas has a GA that can produce the hardware and software behind making that animation. I’ll even spot it the logic gates, chip fabs, and pick & place machines so all it has to do is schematically connect the gates into a hardware platform and write all the software. HAR HAR HAR
I still can’t believe he’s seriously comparing finding a good solution for a six point Steiner tree to something with non-trivial complexity. Talk about clutching at straws to make a point…
Isn’t Natural Selection amazing.
*twinkle on white toothed smile.
Now why would anybody call stuff like that designed? 😛
Yes. The concentrations of enzymes and substrates are regulated in a way that allows fairly efficient function.
Great animation but I wish it was ten times as long…
The video preview shown here is a three-minute condensed version. The full version has a voice over and is eight minutes long.
More info at http://www.xvivo.net/press/harvard_university.htm
The animator, John Liebler, had the full version posted online about a month ago but it seems to be gone now. Maybe if someone asked really nice, he might post it again.
Darwinists don’t like these accurate representations of what goes in inside the microscopic metropolis of the cell. I remember the howls of discomfiture at the graphic presentations of DNA replication and transcription that were portrayed in The Mystery of Life’s Origins. They much prefer the 19th century belief of the cell being a blob of protoplasm. In their mind the cell is not filled with design, but with their simple self fulfilling wishes.
Darwinists donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t like these accurate representations of what goes in inside the microscopic metropolis of the cell.
That’s right. I was thinking the same thing for the last days. Biological Complexity is one of the many enemies of unguided evolution. The more complex it is, the less likely it came about as the result of random forces. (At this point Darwinists usually say “ohh but evolution is not random!” The non-random death (“Natural selection”) doesn’t make things better)
They much prefer the 19th century belief of the cell being a blob of protoplasm.
Yeah. Better keep it simple in order to protect their religious belief. Aren’t they the ones who usually let out amazing sentences like “the brain is nothing but chemicals”?
“The concentrations of enzymes and substrates are regulated in a way that allows fairly efficient function.”
“Regulated” means decision-making function, an IF-THEN-ELSE logical structure. Is there any materialistic explanation of such a structure ? How can “nature” came up – by “blind” processes – and evolve/build such a function?
Ã¢â‚¬Å“Darwinists usually say Ã¢â‚¬Å“ohh but evolution is not random!Ã¢â‚¬ÂÃ¢â‚¬Â
Well, I have a (logical) problem with thisÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ Ã¢â‚¬Å“Non-randomÃ¢â‚¬Â means Ã¢â‚¬Å“directedÃ¢â‚¬Â & Ã¢â‚¬Å“purposeÃ¢â‚¬Â. Nature itself Ã¢â‚¬â€œ materialistically speaking Ã¢â‚¬â€œ cannot have a purposeÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ Evolution, as Darwin proposed, cannot be non-random!
So, which one is right ?
1. Blind Chance & No Purpose RM&NS Evolution Ts True, No Design
2. Purpose Non-Random, Designed Structure Evolution is false, There Is (a) Design(er)
I think that the usage of words like “Evolution is not random” is a way to avoid attacks like “Darwinists believe that all came about by blind chance” (which, in essence, it’s what they believe).
Sure, Darwinism as a “non-random” component: natural selection. But natural selection means just “non-random death”. The generation of new information (and we now know that information is the name of the game) is still a random process (chance).
“Darwinists donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t like these accurate representations of what goes in inside the microscopic metropolis of the cell.”
I should probably mention this to the faculty at Harvard then since they’re planning to show it to undergrads.
“Do the right enzymes just float around in cellular space waiting for a chance meeting with their substrate?”
Yes, although it’s not as ‘clean’ as the video makes out. The cell is a lot more cluttered than that.
“Ã¢â‚¬Å“RegulatedÃ¢â‚¬Â means decision-making function, an IF-THEN-ELSE logical structure. Is there any materialistic explanation of such a structure”
If you,ean the origin of transcription then no, butifyoumean the organisation of the transcriptional network into these logic circuits then there has been a lot of work done in this area.
Can you explain – in a few words, or insert some links – what exactly “transcriptional network” means.
So, next we will be looking for a graphical description for the particular cells in the brain that create and operate conscience. Just the right enzymes and substrates will all make it possible, of course, to experience the taste of a steak (as opposed to the chemical analysis of the steak). It will all explain the “blueness” experience of blue. And just the right enzymes and substrates will explain creativity, you know, coming up with original thoughts right out of the molecular interactions. Oh, the fun is just beginning!!
I also highly recommend “Voyage inside the Cell” by Christian Sardet, Andreas Koch and Laurent Larsonneur.
I ordered it from ARN and once when my 4 year old grandson was visiting he sat down and watched it about 4 times in succession. It is about 15 minutes long with narration. Fascinating.
Ã¢â‚¬Å“Do the right enzymes just float around in cellular space waiting for a chance meeting with their substrate?Ã¢â‚¬Â
Yes, although itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s not as Ã¢â‚¬ËœcleanÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ as the video makes out. The cell is a lot more cluttered than that. – Chris Hyland
I’m no scientist. Is the clutter just “debris” or is it stuff that’s part of other similarly ordered processes?
Telic Thoughts is also discussing this:
Inside the Cell (by Mike Gene)
As we learn more and more about the machinery of life it becomes increasingly obvious that the blind watchmaker is a character in a fairytale. When will Darwinists give up on expecting people to believe in their bedtime stories?
Fortunately, scientists question the “obvious” all of the time. Newton questioned the “obvious” idea that action at a distance was impossible, and came up with his theory of gravitation. Einstein questioned the “obvious” fact that time is absolute and proposed his theory of special relativity. Generations of scientists believed that living creatures must be designed. Darwin questioned that and gave us the concept of natural selection.
The day we accept the “obvious” as invariably true is the day science dies.
Karl: You and Gil are using the concept of “obviousness” differently: you use it to mean an unlearned gut reaction based upon daily experience. Gil, on the other hand, seems to have in mind the kind of obvious which screams at you when you study something exhaustively and get ever finer and more complex levels of detail the more you study. These are incomparable situations, so your analogy doesn’t really help.
Fortunately, scientists question the Ã¢â‚¬Å“obviousÃ¢â‚¬Â all of the time.
The interesting thing is, that with these and other commonly cited examples (such as the apparent flatness of the earth), the more we learn the more it becomes apparent that the “obvious” answer was wrong.
But when it comes to the machinery of life, the opposite is occurring. The more we learn, the more life appears to be designed, and the harder evolutionists have to work to explain away the increasing appearance of design. It reminds me of how increasingly accurate observations of the motion of the planets forced geocentric theory to become increasingly complex and convoluted until finally the whole laboriously constructed edifice collapsed under its own weight.
Karl: And when we question the \”obvious\” with regard to all phyla developing gradually through a blind, purposeless, non-teleological process based on the primitive 19th century notion that the cell is nothing but a useless blob of protoplasm, we inevitably arrive at a Design inference. We have new data. It\’s time to question the Victorian mysticism.
The day we accept the Ã¢â‚¬Å“obviousÃ¢â‚¬Â as invariably true is the day science dies.
And that is why evolutionism is dead.
“Obviously” common descent via the blind watchmaker is invariably true, we just need to work out the “details”. This concept is so obvious anyone who questions it does so because of fundamentalist beliefs.
“Can you explain – in a few words, or insert some links – what exactly Ã¢â‚¬Å“transcriptional networkÃ¢â‚¬Â means.”
Its a network where the nodes are genes and the connections show one gene affection the level of transcription of the other. Obviously when you take into account all the genes in a genome the network gets pretty large, but on a small scale you can see ‘motifs’ consisting of just a few genes that can act in a similar way to logic circuits.
“Is the clutter just Ã¢â‚¬Å“debrisÃ¢â‚¬Â or is it stuff thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s part of other similarly ordered processes?”
It’s because that video only shows a few processes when there are in fact hundreds of different tyes of protiens in the cell, not to mention other molecules, which are all swirling around bumping into each other. Ive seen 3d simulations of ecoli cells with realistic enzyme concentrations of just one signalling pathway and it looks like a jar of bees.
“Karl: You and Gil are using the concept of Ã¢â‚¬Å“obviousnessÃ¢â‚¬Â differently: you use it to mean an unlearned gut reaction based upon daily experience. Gil, on the other hand, seems to have in mind the kind of obvious which screams at you when you study something exhaustively and get ever finer and more complex levels of detail the more you study.”
I’m afraid not, Tina. Look at this excerpt from his latest post:
“These quintessential questions are never asked because the answer is obvious: There is no chance that this could have happened, and most people with a modicum of common sense figure this out. One needs a Ph.D. in evolutionary theory to not figure this out.”
He’s saying it’s obvious, it’s common sense, and only the eggheads with PhD’s in evolutionary biology can’t see it. This is exactly the sort of complacent attitude about the “obvious” that I am criticizing.
Stuart Harris wrote:
Darwinists donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t like these accurate representations of what goes in inside the microscopic metropolis of the cell.
Really? I wasn’t around to hear the howls of discomfiture you mention, but I’ve never heard any pro-evo person express a fondness for 19th century views of the cell. If I had to guess at a typical response to this video, it would be:
2) You see that guy taking his bag of lipds for a walk? Comparative genomic analysis shows that was constructed by co-opting an earlier “take a walk with a sugar molecule” but changing the anchor blah blah blah…”
The complexity generates a sense of wonder, and an opportunity to nibble away at the edges of human ignorance.
Karl: I still think you are misrepresenting what is implied here by the term “common sense” versus a PhD education. In the modern world, literate people have access to worlds of information at their fingertips via the Internet. The latest discoveries in the various sciences are no longer the secret knowledge of an elite few. In fact, some of the existing elites, like your friend Dawkins, now go out of their way to explain to the lay public their (allegedly) scientific ideas. In this condition, it is quite true that the person of basic common sense can easily follow this issue and to that person, it becomes increasingly OBVIOUS that the origin and development of life is MORE LIKELY to be the result of design than of chance.
[…] “breathtaking video” titled “The Inner Life of Cell” had just come out (see http://www.uncommondescent.com.....-of-a-cell). The video was so good that I wanted to use it in some of my public presentations, but when I […]
No comments allowed on your Nov 26, 2007 post regarding the Harvard XVIVO Video? Why is this? Is it because you realize that you have, without question, infringed on their copyright?
Clearly you know more about copyright then you let on. It does not matter that (1) you did not modify the video, (2) that you did not strip the copyright info, and (3) that you did not re-title the video. It does not matter that you wanted to purchase a copy of the video. It does not matter that copies are available on YouTube.
You know this. Public display of someone else’s copyrighted work is illegal. Even if you own the DVD. Even if it is available on YouTube. This is, of course, why you will refrain from using it in the future. You should admit this and apologize instead of posting self-serving defenses to an act which you knew was wrong.
You must be logged in to post a comment.