Organelles of a human cell (2014) by Drew Berry and Etsuko Uno wehi.tv 

Wooooooow

That’s a bit presumptuous of you to assume that a cell or protein has no consciousness.

@@farceadentus I wouldn't say it's presumptuous to draw that conclusion. Consciousness is an incredibly complex phenomena and requires hundreds of millions of neurons. Each of these neurons have thousands of connections to other neurons which makes conscious thought possible. There are more neural connections possible in the human brain than there are subatomic particles in the universe, in a way making the brain more complex than the universe itself. To put this in perspective, a single drop of water contains about 5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms. So, to assume that a single cell with no neural connections lacks consciousness is pretty reasonable I think. A protein isn't even a living thing (it's a molecule) so that quite obviously doesn't have a consciousness.

@@Khomann Again more presumptions. You are merely speculating. Consciousness exists independent of any nuerons. Look up OOBE and NDE experiences. You haven’t experienced being a neutron, a cell, a protein, an atom nor a plant. Therefore you simply do not know wether they have any awareness of anything or not. Consciousness is an eternally subjective experience and phenomena. It cannot be measured, cut, or looked at under a microscope. The only insight into consciousness will come by investigating your own.

@@farceadentus Consciousness is an *emergent property* of neurons (or transistors, or metabolic/chemical systems, or anything that makes up an artificial sentience). You can't have consciousness from molecules the same way you can't have a forest from leaves; because a leaf is merely a part of a plant/tree, and a tree is merely one part of the forest. Molecules have about as much "consciousness" as magnets do. The most basic/smallest thing that can have consciousness is a cell; it responds/reacts to external stimuli (it can sense things) and act upon it.

I love this comment because it so well describes my thoughts on the sound effects developed for these visuals.

So many layers of sound and creativity and sound design on these! At the mitochondria section there's a distinct harmony heard using the strongest harmony in the harmonic series, the perfect fifth, that would definitely relate to things like the sodium potassium pump where there is a 2/3 ratio between the ions moving through the same channel. The rhythmic/harmonic relationship is some thing that they might've picked up on there. Very cool!

Hahahahahahaha!!!!! Best comment *EVVVERR* !!!!!

😆😆🤭

😂

Many more of our animations in the wehi.tv RU-vid playlist: ru-vid.com/group/PLD0444BD542B4D7D9

Except the colours :) And sounds :)

Narrated versions can be found on our animation playlist (cell organelles begin with video #37) ru-vid.com/group/PLD0444BD542B4D7D9

It's awesome! I thought the same, very useful for my students.

They will have nightmares :))

@@cancelled_user Why would they? These reactions happen in everyone’s body billions of times. I will show this to my cousin

No we are not machines. That is very wrong perception. Similarity exists but that is just marginal. And dangerous one, today pushed by satanic cult (kiborg ideas). People from technical background often gave a misconception of biological systems as machines, which implies human can make biological system like machines, and implying these two are the same. They are substantially different: technically, scientifically, philosophically...

Well, ACKCHUALLY...

@@jankodera5811 I think you don't know what machine means. 'Mechanical' just means an automated process which occurs without sentient decision.

@@WrathBiscuits I think you should read again what I wrote, because you just yourself proved my point: Humans are not machines.

@@jankodera5811 There are very clearly millions of automated processes in our body, therefore technically mechanical. Does your DNA replicate by you thinking about it and deciding it's a good idea? How about your sympathetic nervous system? Do you decide to increase your heart rate when somebody surprises you? Does your heart pump blood around your body because you think about it every morning when you wake up? There's no harm in admitting the truth.

Can anybody answer?

It’s a perfectly balanced set of self sustaining chemical reactions

Chemistry

Organic Chemistry... the class you avoided like the plague in college...

Intelligent Design!

xD

yep great work

Nice comment mate

Mee too

I like the sounds...

I think the shapes of molecules are very accurate and speed is slowed down significantly, especially for transport motors.

This is an animation, not a real video

@@asmaerahou747 I think it was meant to be a joke :) But who knows...

An example: 'Programmed Cell Death' (Apoptosis) which initiates the self-destruct mechanism of the cell. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-DR80Huxp4y8.html

Our animation playlist has replication, transcription, translation and many more ru-vid.com/group/PLD0444BD542B4D7D9

ru-vid.com/group/PLZicO-izbp2LxfliRxfeJVTglMFxhetjp

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-jlO8NiPbgrk.html

ER, lysosomes and ribosomes didn't make it into this edit. You can view narrated versions on our animation playlist (#42, 43, 44) ru-vid.com/group/PLD0444BD542B4D7D9

Wonderful

Thank you!

No one is saying these complex organelles designed themselves. They are the byproduct of billions of years of natural selection.

@@deathbyseatoast8854 that is not true. Right at the beginning of live we find simple life forms which are already as complex as this. Photosynthesis the same, btw how could a cell somehow assemble itself and then realise it has no energy and create a highly complex biochemical mechanism as Photosynthesis, that scientists can't even replicate today? Also all species accured suddenly ( cambrian explosion/ mammalian explosion) so this your theory is not backed by science. Its ideology ok, not science.

@@platzhirsch4275 thank you for taking the time and effort into replying to my comment. i appreciate the notion. I've tried to structured my response in such a way that it will be easy to read and comprehend. Here are some of my problems with your arguement: ----------------------- the first misconception you have is that you think that the first life on earth was already as complex as this cell. No educated scientist will ever claim nor has ever made the claim that the first life on earth was as complex as this eukaryotic cell. Even the simplest microbe living on earth right now would be hundreds, thousands, possibly millions times more complex than whatever the first life that appeared on earth looked like. Incase you'd like a further in-depth explanation. the simplest confirmed life on earth (emphasis on confirmed, scientists even now still debate on whether or not viruses and viroids are considered life) are small bacteria that are made up of DNA encapsulated within a plasma membrane alongside numerous other enzymes within its cytoplasm. Even something as seemingly simple as this bacteria cell cannot spontaneously come into existence from nothing. That is where You and the scientific community agree, Modern life (even something as seemingly simple as a bacterial cell) did not spontaneously appear one day. something hundreds, thousands, or possibly millions times more simple did. However that is not evolution, that is abiogenesis (the origin of life from non life) If even now you're unsure what to take away from this it should be: No scientist is claiming that complex life spontaneously appeared. That is *not *evolution. The scientific community completely agrees with you wholeheartedly when you say that even the simplest known life on earth could not have spontaneously appeared. ------------------------- filamentous s, we agree with you. something as complex as photosynthesis did not spontaneously appear as the first life began. That is not evolution. photosynthesis evolved 500,000,000+ years after life had already begun. ------------------------- Your third misconception is that you believe the Cambrian explosion to be the time at which all species suddenly appeared. I don't know where you got this information but this is just flat out incorrect. Hundreds of species known to science were already alive before the cambrian explosion. For example during the ediacaran (a time period 10's of millions of years before the cambrian) primitive multicellular animals resembling modern day animals like sponges, anemones, worms, jellyfish, and sea pens. had already evolved. If even now you're unsure what to take away from this it should be; all species known to science did not spontaneously appear one day during the cambrian explosion. that is not science. that is not evolution. --------------------- Your fourth and biggest misconception is that you think that evolution is not science but an ideology. Evolution *is* backed by science. There are thousands of scientific papers that are peer reviewed each on the subject of evolution proving it to be correct. and the entire field of modern biology is supported by evolution. to deny evolution is to deny evidence and logic. Its like claiming the earth is flat even with the evidence proving it isn't. --------------------- cheers mate. hope this helps you understand a bit more.

@@deathbyseatoast8854 thank for your effort. However let's stick to facts and not hypothesis. Fact is even today we have bacteria, viruses, amoeba and all the rest. Whereas we see adaption ( mikroevolution) occurring species still remain species. Never ever could we observe how a species changed into something else. A bacteria remains what it is: forever. You are making the mistake as taking your hypothesis as a fact and thats not fair as you deceive people in thinking you know, Whereas you don't. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-QNe-syuDJBg.html

@@deathbyseatoast8854 concerning the cambrian explosion you really have to broaden your mind : ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-8USBI0GSSOA.html

It's Magic lol

Sound and colour are artistic design choices to make the animations engaging and meaningful

Mind bowling

To give an idea of the density of molecules in your cells, here is a molecular dynamics simulation of the larger proteins in your cell cytoplasm. It's thick! ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-2fobDHHl11c.html

I never tried but from what I know, I think I really wouldn't want to watch this on DMT :)

I recommend you read up about 'Natural Selection'. Mutations are random, natural selection is not.

read up on genetic entropy. we're passing on about 100 mutations per person per generation (conservatively) . Most are small and don't affect our genome because it is so large. But they don't go away. That's wistful thinking. The book, "Genetic Entropy" presents compelling scientific evidence that the genomes of all living creatures are slowly degenerating - due to the accumulation of slightly harmful mutations. This is happening in spite of natural selection. The author of this book, Dr. John Sanford, is a Cornell University geneticist. Dr. Sanford has devoted more than 10 years of his life to the study of this specific problem. Arguably, he has examined this problem in greater depth than any other scientist.

@@robertecarpenter Read Signature in the Cell, the case for intelligent design.