What is Kinesin? Ron Vale Explains 

It's like they're showing off some dance moves.

theyre actually walking on their head

I'm busting balls of the Scientific Naturalists who endeavor to support Darwinian non-sense. So I insinuated that the Kinesin machines were initially only bound by 1 " foot " for millennia while awaiting the 2nd extension to miraculously incarnate. Sorry for the confusion .... trolling's a bad habit of mine.

Sizi büyüleyen şey ne ise onu yapın🎉

This was an experiment to see if Kinesin would carry something outside it's normal routine. Lol I had the same thought though, like "uhhhh, why is plastic in someone's body??" Lol

@@Wizardmaster55 Oic.. thanks for the clarification.

Literally I paused the video to read the comments to find out if I read that right 😂 glad I'm not the only person who said "Woah, wait... What?!" about the plastic bead lmao

What do you even mean by that?

The creator our god

Energy from ATP and attraction between protein molecules

Nope. Dyenins also

Three major families Kinesins, myosins, and dyneins can be found in neurons and in other types of cells

so instead of Cells at Work! we get the spin off Proteins at Work!

do you like monkeys?

@@stuffedcinema7374 I am addicted to monkeys. I would sacrifice my life for monkeys. I love literally everything about monkeys.

Do you have a source for that claim?

Ummm -- Anti Naturalistic Darwinian Biological Evolutionary Sarcasm ??!!!!!@@Cameroonian

@@WNYXeb777 Anti-Evolution? Yes. It's like saying if I jumble a few tools around long enough, I can get a Boeing Jet with instruction manual.

I prefer the tornado tearing through the Texas sized junkyard and depositing a functional ( Car, jet, hell how about a working toaster ). Natural Science philosophy is a crock of **** . From geologic time scale and depositional sedimentation to Biology n Chemistry with Abiogenesis and Natural Selection all the through Cosmogony and cosmology everything they state is an epic failure of interpretation or a backwards manifestation of logic.@@Cameroonian ? How many Darwinists does it take to change a light bulb???? Answer --- None just wait long enough and it will change it self.

Well, that's a ridiculously frivolous claim. This guy and his team discovered the thing in 1984, but here you come along and know the history of this protein, based on what evidence? Surely not archeological evidence. Why didn't anyone describe the origin story for kinesin before they knew of its existence. We just barely understand the mechanisms of this thing, as Mr Vale said, there are lots of unanswered questions and if you don't fully know the mekanisms of a process you can't give reliable explanations for its origins. But you can always show the opposite is true and describe some other structures and mechanisms that no one knows about and along with thier origin stories.

Thank you 🙏🏽

Who created God

@@phython124 No one, if we humble ourselves and empty ourselves of human pride, we can acknowledge that there is One greater than us, whose signature is all over creation, from the intricacy of the human body to the glory of nature to the vastness of the universe.

@@maxd5298 I have no pride - don't worry about that. Yes he is above us but who or what created him?

I have no clue, therefore I believe.

Evolution built these. :)

@@Communist-Doge nonsense

@@Communist-Doge yeah, doesn't prevent Him from knowing kinesin was in operation, even assuming He hadn't built it himself

Maybe a f*kwit would conclude it. 🤣 How complex must the designer be to create such complexity, then who created the designer. It's just ends in a loop without a real answer. Edit1: you wouldn't even know about this to comment "God did it" unless vastly more intelligent people worked on the problem and found out what's really going on.

It ends in a loop because you falsely assume infinite dimensions. Surely, there is a 4th dimension, but theres no logical reason God has to have a designer in a dimension higher than him. Or else, he isn't God. He would be just like us. It's more correct to assume God has reached the wall of all the dimensions, and there is simply nothing beyond. You might say, "well how can that be, God must have a God higher that created Him". The fact is, you assume your logic is sound, which means your mind has been formed in the ONLY correct way that accurately describes reality, which means, it must have been created from a sound mind. If not, then you can't even claim your own beliefs as accurate. You cant simultaneously be an accidental consciousness that formed from random accidents, and also, have a brain that is programmed in the only precise way that accurately perceives your reality. Your brain is either created with the ability to discern reality, or it's an accident, which hallucinates "reality" which could entirely be false, in which case you shouldnt be making any claims of intelligence whatsoever.

prove there is one , your ignorance of the origin does not prove anything.

There could be a god operating behind every single atom of every single kinesin, in every single cell of every single organism. But it would be stupid for us to even create a name for a designer capable of that. We should work more intensely over the minor details, and who knows... Perhaps one day we'll be able to put all the pieces together and build a god from them. The only thing that I'm sure about, is that science is the best tool we have in order to discover a god ruling the universe.

@@TIR4NO It's the same mystery of dark matter or to even comprehend that there was simply nothing before the big bang. It's just funny avant-garde athiests and thiests battle eachother to death over such topics cyclically.

@@azertyuiop432 u repeat ur comment ?...u sound like a religious fanatic

No

@@boxdemension A nano biological machine must've been intelligently designed. Can you at least agree on that?

@@hwd71 No. Just because we perceive similarities between biological systems and actual human-made machines is no proof that the biological systems were deliberate. It's very unscientific to assert X because it "makes sense to me"

@@boxdemension Can I convince you that the Pyramids only have the appearance of design? That they are actually three hills that just happened by the product of random chance action of wind and erosion over millions of years to look intelligently designed but are not? Is that a reasonable assumption? Did anyone actually see them being built? And after all they are made up of the same material as the surrounding rock.

@@hwd71 no. These aren't appropriate comparisons. Again, this is very unscientific. You can't go around looking analogies and similarities between things and say "this looks complicated. It must be designed." There are whole fields of study dedicated to finding out the origins of these complicated biomolecular systems. There are research articles proposing tentative evolutionary pathways for things like ATP synthase undergoing scrutiny and peer review. If the creationist "proof by analogy" method is so foolproof, where are your Nobel prizes? You'd essentially be proving the existence of a God. The number of "this is OBVIOUSLY designed" comments I see under a video showcasing a biomolecular systems seems to correlate with how analogous that system is with actual human made things.