Astonishing molecular machines: Drew Berry at TEDxSydney 

youtube is going viral

This talk is of low level inspiration -- so its low exposure is not surprising.

More people seek pleasure and sense tingling than information and enlightenment (clearing one's false beliefs and learning). And to be fair, every one of us, more often seek pleasure than information. This is not a problem with humanity - by nature our emotional brain drives us most of the time, getting intellectually curious and substituting the nerve tingling with curiousity and reasoning is evolutionarily a recent phenomenon.. I would think. I do agree that availability of youtube videos and in general music and drama since 1990s has moved more and more people from reading/listening and thinking to watching song and dance more often.

@@RaviAnnaswamy --Curiosity is the cure for boredom. There is no cure for curiosity.

Who is cardi B?

Completely agree, so why so few views?

Perhaps they communicate with quantum entanglement?

No it's imagination.

Gerard Sanford You absolutely sure that’s you and youre life is just a Imagination? sometimes its a really painful Imagination isn’t it? lol

And how would we go about finding the answer to this question?

It's like a. Radio which listens existing waves

The ants have a nervous system, pheromones and other means to coordinate themselves; however, their coordination is in a simpler scale.

Look up Dr James Tour on the tube. He has created nano machines that are able to be directed to specific cells to destroy them within a minute. The major lesson re the workings of the cell is proof of our Creator's design and of the end of the theory of Evolution, the man made philosophy that has blinded a huge percentage of the World's Population. God bless.

@@paulschofield3072 The Lord God works in spectacular ways to deliver the truth to us. For those who can see and hear him, it's very enlightening. I agree with you, Darwinism is dead.

Woher wollen sie das wissen?

@@derhafi LOGIK ;0)

Each atom responds to the forces that work on it, and in turn exert forces on other atoms. Also, electrons move from one atom to another. In all of this, they are following the same laws of physics that operate on them when they are not part of a living organism

That's impossible.

m&m You sound like a Christian.... Clearly it’s not impossible, the planet did it naturally

@@jeremiah1412 i thought you said we gonna make it on our own molecular machines with our bare hands.

@@mm-qu3ht Nope... never said that. I asked WHEN? Right now inside ever single cell in your body, there are molecular machines, tearing your DNA in half, and copying the 2 halves. We are not far off from assembling these machines artificially. We have already made very basic versions of them. Soon we will have them and be able to repair and make changes to cells and DNA in real time. Read up on molecular biology, chemistry and synthetic biology.

I think the term "light" implies visible electromagnetic energy. We observe most things by seeing the light reflecting from them. But if you try to look at microscopic things, eventually you can go small enough that light is too large such that you can no longer visibly see them. So we come up with other methods such as the electron microscope and other newer inventions.

As I recall, someone showed him how to make on, and he made his own

Since when do vegetarians feed on blood.

*entra en el chat la sopa primitiva*

Except that Darwin was not a biologist. He was a Seminary graduate. He guessed, and the biologists turned it into a cultic, despotic religion.

@@johndaugherty4127 Since that guess was made, we have had over a century to prove that it is correct. So it's no longer a guess. See also Feynman: "The Scientific Method: First, we guess the answer. Then we do experiments. It doesn't matter how smart you are or what your name is -- if it doesn't agree with experiment -- it's wrong."

@@rodschmidt8952 what experiments have we done to prove Darwin correct?

@@jt2097 See: selective breeding Or do you have a more specific question? I mean, correct about what, specificially?

Yes, and how else could it be? At some point, must study

@@rodschmidt8952 yeah but not itself

Hindu Goat but I think it’s the same as a cell studying itself.

That is an indication of the limitations of our knowledge. Even our understanding of cells is still extremely incomplete -- we are still just scratching the surface in our understanding of cell division. We do not even understand how memories are stored in the brain.

@@dnickaroo3574 Well I think recently one of the most trending project got complete ,were scientists understood almost the stuff related to memory....Neuralink by elon musk...

Each atom is pushed by its neighbors and by the electrons which they exchange, exactly as in chemistry, which this is

You seem to have a vision of the biological world as a harmonious thing with a purpose to make life nice for us. However, if we have a vision of it as full of conflict, with each organism trying to survive at the expense of other organisms, then we see malaria as just one more organism that has found a way to eat.

@@rodschmidt8952 He/she does have a point for viruses since they do not have metabolism and are obligate intracellular parasites. I think it is fairly likely that they arose from some selfish DNA that was once part of a unicellular prokaryote and by chance now tells other organisms to replicate it.

That's still highly experimental I believe, give it a few years or a decade but eventually we will be able to use that technology for this purpose.

The atoms that you have seen in images are not optical images. They are from a SCANNING ELECTRON MICROSCOPE.

You have to isolate the virus first. Berry said that they isolated a cell. But a cell is not a virus. A single virion is 100,000 times smaller than a cell. That has to be isolated to demonstrate that the virus is actually real. If a virus is not isolated from other tissue, then the science is pseudo-science, just a matter of imagination, as used to make the computer graphics, to convince you that they are real.

@Juno Donat Certain cultures believed that earth was flat, yes. Then some greek math nerd used advanced mathematics & a stick that proved earth was spherical or, at the very least, not flat. We have enough information these days. Research fractals & their infinite complexity. Dr. Jason Lisle does excellent research on them. For me, order & complexity are pretty reasonable signs of intelligence.

@Juno Donat I have questioned why it isn't for so many. I've come to the conclusion that ppl reject the concept of a creator because that means we are accountable for how we live in the end & they don't like the idea of following certain rules because they want to live differently. I'd also argue those whom refrain from belief are doing so from an emotional standpoint & not a rational one. I wouldn't say I'm emotionally attached to my beliefs rather than acknowledging the inference to the best explanation of my research. That seems pretty logical to me. Scientists do it every day & ppl accept it. Gravity, for example, isn't empirically proven by science to exist. Yet a majority of ppl believe it exists, as do I, because it's an inference to the best explanation we have at this point. I find that reasonable. You call my worldview psuedoscience because it's religious. I don't believe that's fair because I use confirmed science to reach my own conclusions. Psuedoscienc would be assumptions that are believed to be true not grounded in real science, which is observable, testable, & repeatable. I don't believe an intelligent designer can be empirically proven via science. I believe real science can lead ppl to the reasonable conclusion of an intelligent designer much like the complexity of everyday items (vehicles, aircraft, paintings, sculptures, ect..) If you wanna do further research, go ahead. You hold to a certain worldview, right now, based on your own current knowledge, inferences & assumptions. Would you also accept, maybe, we should do more research before accepting your conclusion?

@Juno Donat abiogenesis has been disproven in a lab. Far too complex to to from non life to life. Evolution has one major problem, genetic entropy, every species, due to millions of mutations, per generation add up and destroy genetic code that once worked, now doesnt. Even if there is a “good” mutation, which are really rare, theres a million bad mutations that is deleterious that overwhelms it

@Juno Donat explain how it wasnt. Because scientist tried and failed to do so. Maybe you can consider it wasnt proven or disproven but after many failed experiments, it leans onto one side more than the other. Even though enviroment does determine it, overall the genetic code is degraded. Dr John Sanford, phd geneticist, said for every one beneficial mutation there are million deleterious ones. Overtime we are quite the opposite of evolving. Good mutation might get passed on but so do the millions of bad mutations.

@Juno Donat idk if you ever heard of the studies done on fruit flys and simulating approximately 1 million years of evolution through mutations and scientists picked the good genes to make evolution faster. The end result was fruit flys didnt even change to anything close to being different from their kind.

stop trying to incorporate god into the equation. science killed god already

Nope.

"accident" is not a scientific term. this mechanisms had billions of years to develop. it's not really "accidence" but checking all possible variants. some of them survived and writing stupid comments on youtube.

Alexey Lavrov If we get to a point where computer game characters acquire self awareness, will these characters conclude that they are the result of pixels exploring all possible variants? We have a system built up of a periodic table of elements whose interactions are along the lines allowable by the forces, but these elements can not explore arrangements outside of these parameters. Do we build computers by pouring so much sand and copper into a tumbler, after enough time this finite quantity would check all possible variants? Seems to me that the layer of exploration in which biological systems participate, is a layer dependent on subsystems that themselves are intelligently designed.

SeanMauer biology is all about your question. YES, any character of any popular computer game is a result of exploring possible media-variants... sometimes it's truly random if you know something about Japanese games. If we're talking about human-like characters, we see some media exploration - different stereotypes, cliché, etc. If we're talking about more abstract games like geometry wars or space invaders - we literally see "pixel exploration". It's all about time. Billions of years gave us mind to understand some steps behind basic pixel manipulation and developed characters. Basically, therm "intelligent" just means something that was sequentially developed, something that took generations/many years to form. There is no such thing as "stupid" or "intelligent" in nature - for example, there are *most-likely* dead-end branches like lions or deers. Sometimes nature goes in obscure ways - and wee see peacock tail - a really "stupid" thing for survival but "intelligent" for their chicks. We live on this planet and we're not really "more intelligent" then bacterias or viruses - we just have more working "steps" in our dna and our life depends on much more circumstances including bacterias we use to convert food to energy. Is it good for survival in long-term perspective? can we survive 10bln years more, be stable like bacterias? hard to tell as we have both "stupid" and "intelligent" brain, just like a peacock tail it can save or kill us.

SeanMauer No, an'accident' requires someone messing up, nothing went wrong, an no 'person' intervened, the formation of life is better described as a coincidence, but to be honest, with the elements and compounds that exist on earth, it is not surprising that life developed here, as pretty much all the ingredients needed were here.

SeanMauer The subsystems are complex, but not perfect, (why would an intelligent designer create the DNA replication machine that can mess up and cause cancer), and the very obvious reason they are complex is that the less complex 'machines' wouldn't have been as efficient in their job, and would not be reused, as the cell with the machine would most likely die off.

He likes tacos

No

....What?

hart strings Along with all these astonishing complexities, there are also many useless,missing, or even harmful attributes of biological life.And if there was a infinitely intelligent creator,these mistakes would not exist.Take cancer for example,a natural process,and incredibly damaging.Or the fact that we have a blind spot in our eye because of the optical nerve,or even autoimmune diseases where the body attack’s itself.Or countless congenital diseases where mistakes are made during the developing embryo,these are not designs of an intelligent being.

Hagen Torvald eh no what?

I agree.

A lot of brilliant people have been wrong; I don't think that Darwin being wrong or right is what is being addressed here. Regardless of what you think of his work's implications, it was the fact that his work provided a revolutionary way of thinking about speciation via natural selection and challenging a dominant belief that is to be lauded. Referencing Darwin was more than appropriate.

auj lnd I think they were right to talk about Darwin, but if they're talking about molecular machines than he shouldn't have been mentioned as an advocate for the theory of the production of said molecular machines. There is very little evidence that these molecular machines evolved at all. They are so precise and efficient, not to mention placed in exactly the right areas they are needed. If you can find any solid evidence for their evolution than I would be glad to hear it. But even the flagellum evolving from the secretory system has been sufficiently debunked.

Man, you are soooo right about Darwin. And what about that idiot Newton. Absolutely clueless about the effect of mass on space. I mean, he studied mass and optics, and totally missed the fact that gravity bends light rays. And don't get me started on how he couldn't even figure out how a cannonball might act at relativistic speeds. What a marooon! The takeaway is this. Darwin fairly nailed common ancestry and natural selection. It's pretty easy to Monday morning quarterback any scientist out there, including our current cream of the crop. And thank goodness - it's how science advances - but it does so on the shoulders of giants like Newton, and, for the record, Darwin.

@saladdogger because machines are human made, non-living, and artificial, i.e., the product of an external imposition of a design upon matter. These are living constituents of organic natural beings that are self-created and evolved.

@saladdogger lol how is that faith?