The "Classical Mechanics of Biology", where things are reducible to the point of firm mathematics and analytic solutions but not lacking in insight to the real world phenomena. Very well put
I am a first year student in IIT(Indian institute of technology) studying biotechnology. This is one of the best channels I came across to enhance my knowledge. The courses we have right now are focusing more towards genes and sequencing them, and a lot of it seems interesting! Hoping for more such amazing videos👌
Damn I really wish my degree was like that, here in Mexico Biotechnology degrees are more directed towards bioprocesses, a friend of mine actually got an schollarship to study in Chandigarh for a semester starting next year, really hoping to get one too. Love from Mexico.
I got my degree in bio almost 20 years ago, and I always thought that biology had a great deal to teach engineering students about design and efficiency. Evolution has had hundreds of millions of years to do the work, so it really isn't a surprise that really useful parts are highly conserved. At any rate, it sounds like you understand the subject better than I ever did, and it sounds like biology has a very bright future for research. I think we haven't even scratched the surface of what is possible. Subbed!
When A.I. is asked to generate truss and frame structures, it is already coming out looking like bone and skeletal structures. I can only wonder what will be developed once quantum computing is being used effectively with generative design. Most of this is way over my head, but I am always fascinated.
Evolution writes what computer programmers call “Spaghetti code”. One reason why medical research is so difficult is that it’s difficult to read such bad code. If only there has been an intelligent designer…
A thing cannot give rise to something if it does not contain it, or if it does not have the ability ( or the potential) to give rise to it. how on earth should deaf, blind, mindless atoms be able to create and recognise such complex logical relations?
Evolution didn't do that. Evolution can only simplify mechanisms, and not increase complexity. This one is a very complex structure with determined functionality, as it was planned to be such way
I recently completed my degree, this along with a few dozen other molecular mechanisms and their regulation was covered in intense biochemical and some biomechanical detail in “bacterial physiology” at my university. Look for something along those lines in your course catalog when you’re in your UD electives!
FANTASTIC visualizations! I'm now subscribed and I expect that as soon as this falls into the 3Blue1Brown viewership cluster, this channel will take off. I recommend entering the summer of math video competitions he runs to get into that cluster (if you haven't already).
I'm wrapping up a biochemistry degree, and my roommate has a degree in computer science, yet it wasn't until I found this channel that I figured out just how similar the two fields can be!
As a biophysics student, I have one shortcut for how to handle Biological systems: Machines made out of Strings/Boiled Noodles. Most biological active substances are what is known as soft matter, and as such are both easy to change shape and require outside interference to keep some shape. Like bundled-up strings. Yet despite that, they still work somewhat like machines. They still can transform the electrical current to motion, transport stuff, reinforce, contract, cut, "Weld" etc. Biological systems are systems of soft machines, that can be changed easily by outside substances or other interfering forces. As such I fully support your language and more or less love your take on this quite complex topic.
Wow that's amazing! This is new to me, but the transition diagrams of the timing network remind me of the pattern of light absorption and emission from molecular electron valences. That math involves a "fine structure" constant which is proportional to the spacing of spectral lines of diffraction. This is how light can tell us the molecular composition of radiant masses. The value of the constant, about 1/137, would appear in the proportions of difference of the K values shown, if the same mathematical model is in play. A very different scale than the electromagnetic spectrum, but both are Lagrangian and the fine structure constant is a pure number without reference to scaling. It is truly fascinating that this is a biological timing circuit made of molecular components. The role that time plays in energy exchanges at any level of phenomenal scale is not the simplest form of algebra. I believe the correct term is "sesquilinear forms". But even physics has difficulties with that sort of equation, involving _both growth and decay functions_ in the evolution of energy transitions (which is everything from the maths point of view). Great food for thought. Many thanks.
I enjoyed reading your comment. It was interesting when you expressed how that is relevant to ‘radiant masses’. It sounds like an important qualifier. What are radiant masses/could you help me understand what that phrase means?
@@ToriKo_ I meant to distinguish between mass that is too cold to be seen in the dark, and what we can see through some sort of detector. All mass radiates energy in the form of heat and some degree of nuclear decay, but this is usually a tiny amount of energy. But this energy is always very specific in frequency levels, to the extent that the wavelengths of light that do radiate each indicate a precise configuration of the electron valence in the atom that released the photons of radiation. The spectrum also works as an absorption spectrum which will also indicate electron configurations, but then the light that is being used for detection must be "white light", light that spans the spectrum. But then there is the radiant mass which we know as the stars in the sky. These produce full spectrum radiation, white light, but when it is diffracted the lines of interference also reveal specific emission spectra indicating the atomic constituents of the star's mass. So I was thinking about how the new space telescope is able to detect chemicals in the atmosphere of distant planets: they take the diffraction spectrum of the radiant mass of the star, and then look at that light through the atmosphere of the planet as it passes on front of the star. Whatever lines have been absorbed by the atmosphere indicate the presence of different chemical elements on the planet. Sorry if this is unclear. Radiant mass is hot enough to glow... 🤓
As one who has electronic and programming experience, this was fascinating. What is more fascinating is that most “learned” people subscribe to this happening by accident, or, if you will, evolution. Even a cursory exploration of the human body displays an incredible “program” which is running inside each and every cell in our bodies.
7:15 to 8:30 this diagram and description have a eerie similarity to an analog circuit timer known a 555. This timer has a circuit called Schmitt trigger. It only changes state after a certain level is reached and does not go back to the other state until the opposite threshold is passed.
Great Video, thank you for your effort! I was wondering if you mixed up K1' and K2' for the disassembly part of the flagella, since intuitively, I would assume that the disassembly of flagella is reversed to the assembly of flagella. So that the machinery first stops producing the hook and cap, then the rings, then the rods and then the rest. This would correspond to an order of K2' > K1' or in extended case: K'cap > K'ring> K' rods > K' stator > K' apparatus. Its a pleasure to watch your videos!
Cells are literally machines though. Their complexity dwarfs anything a human could construct, or even imagine, but they are physical and are thus machines.
0:02 wait a minute... That's an animation error! The stators shouldn't be rotating along with the rotor (the white rings on the inner membrane and in the cell wall should be static).
just an outsiders view, I think it would be nice to get inticed to learn the math and logic with some more "visualization" dotted throughout the later half. Very well done in the beginning but I felt like it was a teaser for graphics that werent delivered at atleast some kind of climax. Hope this is well recieved by you. Have a good one and dont stop.
At around 10:30 you didn’t tell us how K’1 and K’2 correlate to the building of different parts of the flagellum that need to be built in order relative to each other. That is the assumption I made to make sense of the video after watching that section a few times. This is a really cool video but I feel you could have improved the communication around that part
Felt like you brought up the mind-blowing, rule-bending, soul-mending, faith-breaking, future-making nano-engine, then forgot about it and got distracted by math. This could be much better if you showed the motor or the cell with the charts, and what happens to them, in real time. I specialize in automatic control, but couldn't make the connection and didn't understand a thing. I love your channel though.
The latter half of the video looks somewhat similar to an ADSR synthesizer envelope. Perhaps the analog circuitry behind that tech shares similar mathematics.
Industrial Revolution mindset was obbsesed with consumption and materials so with that paradolia of the mind thsy establish the theory names and explanation In biology to begin with. The best explanation is idealistic like code , blue print , program, but of course it a dualism to matter with more hardware and mechanics.
@@Nanorooms oh cool its python, seems like quite a bit of code to get this done, I'm genuinely curious how do you have time for this and how did you manage to learn all of this are you are computational biologist a magician an alien?
I am a mere mortal undergrad hahaha. I did use a bit of keynote to compose the more trivial movements tho. But still, it’s just a lot of tricky work life balance maneuvers to be able to make time for this stuff.
I disagree with the idea cells aren't that computer-y. The mathematical side of computer science is VERY relevant to biology. The two fields of study are not just related by analogy or coincidence; they are actually related.
=== How did the equations for life, with the correct molecules and chemicals or engineered chemicals, not interact with all of the other chemicals during the pre-life process, if there is even such a thing? How would you have contained the specific chemical reactions, with the correct chemicals reactions , and then prevent the correct and or incorrect chemicals, from interacting with each other? And then, how would you have stopped the decaying process at the molecular levels? It gets more complicated then this. ==== Evolution = Self Assembling Atoms = Impossible ====
maybe this is why modifying humans is so fucking hard, all of space and time has convened for us to exist as we are and for us to get better means understanding all this shit and thats REALLY fucking complicated. FUCK, i just wana fly naked man, why do i have to be bound by bullshit like gravity and physics
Intelligent design advocates embrace this logic but Richard Dawkins somehow explains this as well. Maybe it is a hybrid of evolution and a consciousness that can make modifications as needed similar to epigenetics adapting to environmental challenges.
I appreciate the assembly diagram at the beginning. Now assemble it one part at a time, with each step being advantageous to the animal for thousands, or hundreds of thousands of years--at least not disadvantageous in any way. That's how "descent with modification" would have to occur to result in this motor. Time after time, when we zoom into nature, we find structures that, if one piece were removed, would not work less well--they would not work at all. Darwin's descent with modification cannot explain this--he said it himself. This stator motor, if it evolved one step at a time, would do nothing until the final part arrived. It simply boggles my mind that we created a massive group of thinkers in the world who are just okay with this--who are okay saying, "well, we don't know how it happened, but it must have happened just that way". Really? What would it take for you to say, "designed, obviously." I assert there is no standard by which materialists would ever be convinced of design. None. If you can't look at a rotary motor and say that material explanations fail to explain something like this because of common sense, you have no standard by which you'd believe in bio-design. Darwin said that if some structure in nature was found that could not be arrived at one tiny character at a time, then his theory would be utterly falsified. Well, we have found hundreds of these pristinely simple systems (and some very complex, like blood clotting) that have no one-step-at-a-time path to existence. Anyone who got here, please look at the rotary motor that "just happened", and decide for yourself what your threshold for intelligent bio-design is. It is just these structures that keep me solidly convinced that there is more to the universe than bald materialism. Much, much more.
'What would it take for you to say, "designed, obviously."' good evidence. look up how a flagella very likely came from a type iii secretory and transport system, there might be a bit more elucidation for you.
@@zhou_sei What advantage would the animal have with a rotor and no stator? Please explain. Remember, there would have to be an advantage for thousands or hundreds of thousands of years. What advantage would there be to a stator with no rotor? Pondering the answer is laughable. There is no answer that makes material sense. Rotor and stator would have to arrive together--the odds of that might be more elucidation for you.
@@Furyswipes if you're TRULY interested in learning this, i implore you to watch this video, starting at two minutes: ua-cam.com/video/xHUQf7Rjy8g/v-deo.html
@@zhou_sei There's nothing to "learn". Origins science is all just making up a good story. It's all stories. "Well, it could have happened this way". Now you're happy. You have a good story to go to sleep with. None of it is likely (to say the least), none of it is testable, repeatable, falsifiable. It's not science. It's materialistic storytelling. The truth is right before you. No, you would not have a stator without a rotor, or vice versa, ever. You just don't want to believe the obvious when it contradicts your dogma. Life is the message. The discovery of a coded language in every cell that can build the cell, specialized in a billion different ways, fight a near infinite number of diseases and injuries, and a machine to process and read that code--this should have been the end of any debate about spontaneous generation. But the seed had already been planted, long before this discovery, and the dogma was strong in the materialists.
@@Furyswipes i can tell by your first few words that you aren't here to debate, but to flaunt your stubborn superstition as though you're proud that you have an inability to change your mind when presented with new information. i bid you adieu, and i hope you learn to be able to have some flexibility in your thinking and some desire to learn critical reasoning. have a good life!
@@skavihekkora5039If you want a refutation to Behe's claim from a Catholic Christian, Kenneth Miller is your guy. He is a cell biologist, molecular biologist and a practising Christian.
@@adebayostephen7576 wouldnt call it refutation, just a partial argument. Still cant find anyone showing how a function specific organ could evolve, only thing we have is vague "chance" and "natural selection". If it is possible there most be a reverse coupling between gene coding and environmental feedback.
@@skavihekkora5039 No, it is a refutation. Behe's argument has been laid to rest by many scientists. If your understanding of Evolution is just chance and natural selection, then I think it is futile to continue this conversation. Many peer-reviewed articles had been published on the evolution of many genes(see molecular evolution) and many systems(circulatory, digestive, reproductive) and organs(heart, eyes, limbs). "Still can't find anyone showing how..." To start with analysing that question, How many scientific papers have you read on the evolution of any system or organ or gene? You appear to be making an argument from ignorant: I can't find anyone showing how a specific organ... Did you look through any scientific journals on EvoBio? No, you didn't. But you are here making confident claims.
I disagree strongly with subanima, when iphones first came out and jailbreaking was a big thing I "bricked" my iphone. It is now an incredibly expensive paper weight/mirror, multiple unintended functions!
@@zhou_sei this video uses engineering and design as an analogy for cellular functions because their precise, orderly, and timed, as if someone had ‘designed’ them. In this case, I think the burden of proof is on the evolutionist, that somehow a highly ordered system could arise from disorder, and information arise from nothing.
@@special_stardust the burden of proof for evolution/ common descent has been met bajillions of times over; the mountain of good evidence will be QUITE the task to overcome for the MOST intrepid creationist. "seeming" designed is not the same as "being" designed.
Superb quality animations and math explantions, thanks for your hard work! There is only one major logical problem though, which is possibly subconcious. Here and there you were rightfully amazed by the seen nanoengineering, but on multiple occasions you gave glory to Nature. Why is that? What would you say to me if we both saw the engineering of a laptop or a phone or a airplane, and I would say absolutely no intelligence was behind them? Or, if we both saw the beauty of Mona Lisa painting, and I would say the same? Wouldn’t you say to me ”Nonsense!” or ”Impossible!” or ”Illogical”, and even prove to me with many examples that I’m being irrational. Now, when we awe before the technologically superior nanoengineering of life, then could you please pause for a moment and give all that glory to Creator. Consider these words, and start making your videos to glorify Father God, and you will see your life transform! Who is Father God? He is the One revealed by Son of God, Jesus = Yeshua of Christianity nearly 2000 years ago. For more answers about Abiogenesis and Origin of Life, see Prof. Dr. James M. Tour’s channel: DrJamesTour. He is a synthetic chemist and has over 700 publications with over 100000 citations and is openly debating about these matters, proving from the first principles that scientifically we have no clue how life got started!
Calling it "God" or "laws of nature" is a just a difference in semantics as long as you don't strictly believe in a fictional book. I don't believe there is a "creator" but rather a set of rules that were there for eternity as far as we know. I mean most definitions of God also claim that he was there for eternity so there really is no difference. The word God has a less neutral and more negative connotation to me though since no people were killed for the laws of physics but rather the belief in a certain iteration of God. People are free to call it nature or god or whatsoever and nobody should be pushed to word it in a certain way.
as soon as you can provide me with a designed universe that we can analyze and know FOR SURE it's a designed universe, THEN we can compare OUR universe and see if it's designed. we know the mona lisa was painted, and by whom... to within a pretty high degree of certainty.
@@MulmgottWhy not use Father God, revealed by Son of God? Judge the use of God’s name based on the original author, Jesus, not by the hypocrites that tried to use it for their personal gain… Bible is not a fictional book, for far too many historical reasons. Lee Strobel’s ”The Case for Christ” book summarizes those rather well. The key is that it is a historical library of books written by many eyewitnesses of what was Father God’s plan to save humanity from death and how he did it in Son of God, Jesus. It also reveals Jesus as Logos, who holds all things together. Here ”holds” is an active verb. Therefore, I would ask WHO is the so called laws of nature?
@@zhou_sei First, are you aware that universe (Latin root) literally means ”all things, everybody, all people, the whole world”? It does not make logical sense to ask me to show you another universe, because there is no other universe by definition. Second, why don’t you look at things you can already see, instead of focusing on all things, which only God can do? Why do you require impossible top-down analysis, which even you can’t do yourself, when we all can already do bottom-up analysis? The video was about life’s nanoengineering, of which design is a thing we can already assess with our reasoning based on the experimental evidence about how chemistry and physics work in the laboratory and what human creativity is capable of in the everyday life. We have overwhelming evidenve that it requires human intelligence to organize non-organic matter into an iPhone with all of its pre-programmed micro- and nanodevices. We have overwhelming evidence that it requires human creativity to organize color pigments on canvas into a masterpiece like Mona Lisa. Don’t you realize that humans are creators, or, to make it clear, images of Creator? The sufficient evidence has already been given to us… Would you be willing to admit this?
In conclusion, if we have courage to follow the evidence, then we must admit ”science” of abiogenesis is a fairytale or a fictional story with no basis in the known reality. Still today it has zero empirical evidence as support, yet it is falsely hyped by media and religiously defended by ”scientists”, so badly that real scientists are shut off from challenging the narrative. If you dare, then see DrJamesTour channel for what chemistry without outside intelligence is actually capable of! If you dare, then also see Sky Scholar dismantle Standard Cosmology as well. If you dare, then also see Unzicker’s Real Physics dismantle Standard Physics as well. I could go on and on…
Ah, so this is why my biology major required so many math classes!
My friends just have to do calc 1 and then act like it's so many math classes
@@NoorquackerInd differential equations was the last one I had to do for engineering
Mathematical Sciences
@@NoorquackerIndmeanwhile I am doing a physics and math double major and take literally 12 times as many math classes.
I love how this implies/communicates that your biology major didn't actually teach you why you needed the math but this video did.
The "Classical Mechanics of Biology", where things are reducible to the point of firm mathematics and analytic solutions but not lacking in insight to the real world phenomena. Very well put
@Dino Sauro I don't see the connection
I am a first year student in IIT(Indian institute of technology) studying biotechnology. This is one of the best channels I came across to enhance my knowledge. The courses we have right now are focusing more towards genes and sequencing them, and a lot of it seems interesting! Hoping for more such amazing videos👌
Damn I really wish my degree was like that, here in Mexico Biotechnology degrees are more directed towards bioprocesses, a friend of mine actually got an schollarship to study in Chandigarh for a semester starting next year, really hoping to get one too. Love from Mexico.
@@regulusmuphrid4891 clueless
Damn nice brother 👍
@@thewatchman_returns ?
This legend got a reply from an IITian, damn
I got my degree in bio almost 20 years ago, and I always thought that biology had a great deal to teach engineering students about design and efficiency. Evolution has had hundreds of millions of years to do the work, so it really isn't a surprise that really useful parts are highly conserved. At any rate, it sounds like you understand the subject better than I ever did, and it sounds like biology has a very bright future for research. I think we haven't even scratched the surface of what is possible.
Subbed!
When A.I. is asked to generate truss and frame structures, it is already coming out looking like bone and skeletal structures. I can only wonder what will be developed once quantum computing is being used effectively with generative design. Most of this is way over my head, but I am always fascinated.
Evolution writes what computer programmers call “Spaghetti code”. One reason why medical research is so difficult is that it’s difficult to read such bad code. If only there has been an intelligent designer…
A thing cannot give rise to something if it does not contain it, or if it does not have the ability ( or the potential) to give rise to it.
how on earth should deaf, blind, mindless atoms be able to create and recognise such complex logical relations?
Evolution didn't do that. Evolution can only simplify mechanisms, and not increase complexity. This one is a very complex structure with determined functionality, as it was planned to be such way
@@AdrianBoyko the spaghetti code doesn't mean it's not the most efficient and optimal. Which it is.
god i'm so glad the youtube algorithm just one day decided to bless me with your channel - amazing videos!
This vid is awesome. I’m doing my undergrad in cell bio and wish I had some classes that took this perspective on biology.
I recently completed my degree, this along with a few dozen other molecular mechanisms and their regulation was covered in intense biochemical and some biomechanical detail in “bacterial physiology” at my university. Look for something along those lines in your course catalog when you’re in your UD electives!
FANTASTIC visualizations! I'm now subscribed and I expect that as soon as this falls into the 3Blue1Brown viewership cluster, this channel will take off. I recommend entering the summer of math video competitions he runs to get into that cluster (if you haven't already).
I have entered that twice already haha
@@Nanorooms oh fiddlesticks I apologize for not doing my cursory research on that. Well heck, you must be in the cluster! Algorithm brought me to you!
Keep going!
I'm wrapping up a biochemistry degree, and my roommate has a degree in computer science, yet it wasn't until I found this channel that I figured out just how similar the two fields can be!
As a biophysics student, I have one shortcut for how to handle Biological systems: Machines made out of Strings/Boiled Noodles.
Most biological active substances are what is known as soft matter, and as such are both easy to change shape and require outside interference to keep some shape. Like bundled-up strings.
Yet despite that, they still work somewhat like machines. They still can transform the electrical current to motion, transport stuff, reinforce, contract, cut, "Weld" etc.
Biological systems are systems of soft machines, that can be changed easily by outside substances or other interfering forces.
As such I fully support your language and more or less love your take on this quite complex topic.
As a MSc in nanochemistry with organic, medicinal, biochem background, I can just say your channel is marvel.
Since we've basically pushed silicon to it's limit, I have a feeling nano/biotech will be the new frontier of technology.
Wow that's amazing! This is new to me, but the transition diagrams of the timing network remind me of the pattern of light absorption and emission from molecular electron valences. That math involves a "fine structure" constant which is proportional to the spacing of spectral lines of diffraction. This is how light can tell us the molecular composition of radiant masses.
The value of the constant, about 1/137, would appear in the proportions of difference of the K values shown, if the same mathematical model is in play. A very different scale than the electromagnetic spectrum, but both are Lagrangian and the fine structure constant is a pure number without reference to scaling.
It is truly fascinating that this is a biological timing circuit made of molecular components. The role that time plays in energy exchanges at any level of phenomenal scale is not the simplest form of algebra. I believe the correct term is "sesquilinear forms". But even physics has difficulties with that sort of equation, involving _both growth and decay functions_ in the evolution of energy transitions (which is everything from the maths point of view). Great food for thought. Many thanks.
Leaving a comment so I can find yours again! I love when folks really give some deep insight even in the comments section. Thanks for sharing!
@@jordanfarr3157 building neural links takes a cosmos ⚛️🙏🐒
I enjoyed reading your comment. It was interesting when you expressed how that is relevant to ‘radiant masses’. It sounds like an important qualifier. What are radiant masses/could you help me understand what that phrase means?
@@ToriKo_ I meant to distinguish between mass that is too cold to be seen in the dark, and what we can see through some sort of detector. All mass radiates energy in the form of heat and some degree of nuclear decay, but this is usually a tiny amount of energy. But this energy is always very specific in frequency levels, to the extent that the wavelengths of light that do radiate each indicate a precise configuration of the electron valence in the atom that released the photons of radiation. The spectrum also works as an absorption spectrum which will also indicate electron configurations, but then the light that is being used for detection must be "white light", light that spans the spectrum.
But then there is the radiant mass which we know as the stars in the sky. These produce full spectrum radiation, white light, but when it is diffracted the lines of interference also reveal specific emission spectra indicating the atomic constituents of the star's mass.
So I was thinking about how the new space telescope is able to detect chemicals in the atmosphere of distant planets: they take the diffraction spectrum of the radiant mass of the star, and then look at that light through the atmosphere of the planet as it passes on front of the star. Whatever lines have been absorbed by the atmosphere indicate the presence of different chemical elements on the planet.
Sorry if this is unclear. Radiant mass is hot enough to glow... 🤓
It's quite a cool kind of engineering- where you try every single possible combination and the one that works gets to continue to exist
Wow, I wasn't expecting such an in depth explanation.
As one who has electronic and programming experience, this was fascinating. What is more fascinating is that most “learned” people subscribe to this happening by accident, or, if you will, evolution. Even a cursory exploration of the human body displays an incredible “program” which is running inside each and every cell in our bodies.
Danke, dass du mein Interesse an diesem Thema geweckt hast!
What an awesome channel! Amazing animations and amazing potential, I’m glad to have found it. This is quality stuff.
How are the 3-d biology models made? I’ve always wondered how such animations are created.
Check the channel I linked in the desc!
subbed! love to see some comprehensive biology videos
I’d love if you could make a video to explain the proton pumps and respiratory chain of mitochondria!
Dang, so cool. Thanks for making these videos so those of us not in biological chemistry can still appreciate these things.
Damn, 200$ for a book. Glad it's on libgen
What is the name of book
Just discovered your channel and I love the 3B1B-style animations!
I feel like the new UA-cam policy will bring content like this to the top.
7:15 to 8:30 this diagram and description have a eerie similarity to an analog circuit timer known a 555. This timer has a circuit called Schmitt trigger. It only changes state after a certain level is reached and does not go back to the other state until the opposite threshold is passed.
absolutely LOVE this series! it really exposes the true beautiful clockwork systems of biology in a way the memorization cannot
These are amazing! But please number the video titles so we know what order we're supposed to watch them in...
Love your videos Bro, stay scientific
Always!
Great Video, thank you for your effort! I was wondering if you mixed up K1' and K2' for the disassembly part of the flagella, since intuitively, I would assume that the disassembly of flagella is reversed to the assembly of flagella. So that the machinery first stops producing the hook and cap, then the rings, then the rods and then the rest. This would correspond to an order of K2' > K1' or in extended case: K'cap > K'ring> K' rods > K' stator > K' apparatus. Its a pleasure to watch your videos!
Cells are literally machines though. Their complexity dwarfs anything a human could construct, or even imagine, but they are physical and are thus machines.
Right on. Thanks for sharing.
I love it... if only I culd comprehend this asom info!😵💫🤨
0:02 wait a minute... That's an animation error! The stators shouldn't be rotating along with the rotor (the white rings on the inner membrane and in the cell wall should be static).
Biology right now is going through the same phase physics was going through when thermodynamics was invented.
This is phenomenal stuff!
so thankful for this channel
just an outsiders view, I think it would be nice to get inticed to learn the math and logic with some more "visualization" dotted throughout the later half. Very well done in the beginning but I felt like it was a teaser for graphics that werent delivered at atleast some kind of climax.
Hope this is well recieved by you. Have a good one and dont stop.
Great video! Beautiful!
While it may seem that certain processes follow a set pattern, the reality is that there is a high level of chaos and randomness at play.
I have witnessed something beautiful
it is computation. having a narrow view of what that word means leads to any conclusion otherwise. no different than a mechanical clockwork computer.
At around 10:30 you didn’t tell us how K’1 and K’2 correlate to the building of different parts of the flagellum that need to be built in order relative to each other. That is the assumption I made to make sense of the video after watching that section a few times. This is a really cool video but I feel you could have improved the communication around that part
Also the beginning disclaimer was great I though
Felt like you brought up the mind-blowing, rule-bending, soul-mending, faith-breaking, future-making nano-engine, then forgot about it and got distracted by math. This could be much better if you showed the motor or the cell with the charts, and what happens to them, in real time. I specialize in automatic control, but couldn't make the connection and didn't understand a thing. I love your channel though.
Great articulation
Great quality of video.
The latter half of the video looks somewhat similar to an ADSR synthesizer envelope. Perhaps the analog circuitry behind that tech shares similar mathematics.
Damn underrated channel
I don't understand any of the maths, yet still a fascinating video for me nonetheless.
Industrial Revolution mindset was obbsesed with consumption and materials so with that paradolia of the mind thsy establish the theory names and explanation In biology to begin with.
The best explanation is idealistic like code , blue print , program, but of course it a dualism to matter with more hardware and mechanics.
Can you do a booklist for more in depth knowledge about this field
Nice viideo man! How did you make those DNA animations?
Woow! Thank you so much for this superb video!
My brain hurts. But that is a good thing. Means I'm learning something
Nice 🤌✌️ Looking forward to more biology videos.
great video
I am currently studying ML and DL
Is it better to go on computational neuroscience field?
Help me direct my path
Very intresting biology
Yes, cells are machines (at least according to machine theory).
These videos would be much more educational if I understood mathematics more intuitively :'(
Do uou imagine that in the future we may make biological devices instead of electrical or mechanical ones?
Awesome video! amazing animation!
Social anxiety created the flagellum, and i felt that.
Top comment of the video
amazing video!
You nerds can keep your maths out of my bio chem!
what program do you use for animations and moving around equations so fluidly?
All in the description
@@Nanorooms oh cool its python, seems like quite a bit of code to get this done, I'm genuinely curious how do you have time for this and how did you manage to learn all of this are you are computational biologist a magician an alien?
I am a mere mortal undergrad hahaha. I did use a bit of keynote to compose the more trivial movements tho. But still, it’s just a lot of tricky work life balance maneuvers to be able to make time for this stuff.
@@Nanorooms Well its fucking impressive, I've been an organic chemist for about 10 years and I'm learning a lot from your videos so thanks.
I love this
Crunchy roll 😮
Let’s go prompt my goat
Where is the mechanism
It is so great to see the miracle of God's creation in nature
If this video is showing a mathematical example of signaling cascade, how would someone augment this for an analog circuit for computational purposes?
outstanding
I disagree with the idea cells aren't that computer-y. The mathematical side of computer science is VERY relevant to biology. The two fields of study are not just related by analogy or coincidence; they are actually related.
Well... how does a cell NOT create flagella after it already created one? Is the DNA marked somehow?
They had nano tech patents since the 80’s. Of motors consisting of less then 10 arrows. And all kinds of crazy things. Imagine where we really are at.
=== How did the equations for life, with the correct molecules and chemicals or engineered chemicals, not interact with all of the other chemicals during the pre-life process, if there is even such a thing? How would you have contained the specific chemical reactions, with the correct chemicals reactions , and then prevent the correct and or incorrect chemicals, from interacting with each other? And then, how would you have stopped the decaying process at the molecular levels? It gets more complicated then this. ==== Evolution = Self Assembling Atoms = Impossible ====
new gnosis just dropped!!!
Paper and pencil still biology?
my point is to use these types of components to create nano machine cybernetics
maybe this is why modifying humans is so fucking hard, all of space and time has convened for us to exist as we are and for us to get better means understanding all this shit and thats REALLY fucking complicated. FUCK, i just wana fly naked man, why do i have to be bound by bullshit like gravity and physics
just wait until people realize core mechanism of production of energy is through a generator-like mechanism in mitochondria.
I cant believe such complex mechanism just "evolved"... logic doesn't just evolve
Intelligent design advocates embrace this logic but Richard Dawkins somehow explains this as well. Maybe it is a hybrid of evolution and a consciousness that can make modifications as needed similar to epigenetics adapting to environmental challenges.
Says the person who comes from a long lineage of evolved organisms lol
@@williamm8069you’re getting closer to the truth
@@cadenelson891 no proof
So ChatGPT says all the time that it is not like Biological stuff is because it is a machine and today I got the revers disclaimer haha
I legit thought this was a crochet pattern trying to load..
Hold up the filgela spins?!?!
It is a machine because it was designed to be a machine.
lifeforms are machines they are just different from our current machines.
2:44 I fell on this and I'm at computer cience college now. Totally works and worth🤣
What profession have you studied to know that? I would like to learn
I don't know for sure, but my guesses would be
Biochemical/Bioengineering or Bioinformatics
I appreciate the assembly diagram at the beginning. Now assemble it one part at a time, with each step being advantageous to the animal for thousands, or hundreds of thousands of years--at least not disadvantageous in any way. That's how "descent with modification" would have to occur to result in this motor.
Time after time, when we zoom into nature, we find structures that, if one piece were removed, would not work less well--they would not work at all. Darwin's descent with modification cannot explain this--he said it himself.
This stator motor, if it evolved one step at a time, would do nothing until the final part arrived.
It simply boggles my mind that we created a massive group of thinkers in the world who are just okay with this--who are okay saying, "well, we don't know how it happened, but it must have happened just that way". Really? What would it take for you to say, "designed, obviously." I assert there is no standard by which materialists would ever be convinced of design. None. If you can't look at a rotary motor and say that material explanations fail to explain something like this because of common sense, you have no standard by which you'd believe in bio-design.
Darwin said that if some structure in nature was found that could not be arrived at one tiny character at a time, then his theory would be utterly falsified. Well, we have found hundreds of these pristinely simple systems (and some very complex, like blood clotting) that have no one-step-at-a-time path to existence.
Anyone who got here, please look at the rotary motor that "just happened", and decide for yourself what your threshold for intelligent bio-design is.
It is just these structures that keep me solidly convinced that there is more to the universe than bald materialism. Much, much more.
'What would it take for you to say, "designed, obviously."'
good evidence.
look up how a flagella very likely came from a type iii secretory and transport system, there might be a bit more elucidation for you.
@@zhou_sei What advantage would the animal have with a rotor and no stator? Please explain. Remember, there would have to be an advantage for thousands or hundreds of thousands of years.
What advantage would there be to a stator with no rotor? Pondering the answer is laughable. There is no answer that makes material sense. Rotor and stator would have to arrive together--the odds of that might be more elucidation for you.
@@Furyswipes if you're TRULY interested in learning this, i implore you to watch this video, starting at two minutes:
ua-cam.com/video/xHUQf7Rjy8g/v-deo.html
@@zhou_sei There's nothing to "learn". Origins science is all just making up a good story. It's all stories. "Well, it could have happened this way". Now you're happy. You have a good story to go to sleep with. None of it is likely (to say the least), none of it is testable, repeatable, falsifiable. It's not science. It's materialistic storytelling. The truth is right before you. No, you would not have a stator without a rotor, or vice versa, ever. You just don't want to believe the obvious when it contradicts your dogma. Life is the message. The discovery of a coded language in every cell that can build the cell, specialized in a billion different ways, fight a near infinite number of diseases and injuries, and a machine to process and read that code--this should have been the end of any debate about spontaneous generation. But the seed had already been planted, long before this discovery, and the dogma was strong in the materialists.
@@Furyswipes i can tell by your first few words that you aren't here to debate, but to flaunt your stubborn superstition as though you're proud that you have an inability to change your mind when presented with new information.
i bid you adieu, and i hope you learn to be able to have some flexibility in your thinking and some desire to learn critical reasoning.
have a good life!
This is the missing link.
You lost me at 5:32
Nature engineered - thats actually a pretty bold assumption considering chances for flagella being a product of evolution are practically zero.
How is zero?
@@adebayostephen7576 check out michael behe on the subject to get precise info
@@skavihekkora5039If you want a refutation to Behe's claim from a Catholic Christian, Kenneth Miller is your guy. He is a cell biologist, molecular biologist and a practising Christian.
@@adebayostephen7576 wouldnt call it refutation, just a partial argument. Still cant find anyone showing how a function specific organ could evolve, only thing we have is vague "chance" and "natural selection". If it is possible there most be a reverse coupling between gene coding and environmental feedback.
@@skavihekkora5039 No, it is a refutation. Behe's argument has been laid to rest by many scientists.
If your understanding of Evolution is just chance and natural selection, then I think it is futile to continue this conversation.
Many peer-reviewed articles had been published on the evolution of many genes(see molecular evolution) and many systems(circulatory, digestive, reproductive) and organs(heart, eyes, limbs).
"Still can't find anyone showing how..."
To start with analysing that question,
How many scientific papers have you read on the evolution of any system or organ or gene?
You appear to be making an argument from ignorant: I can't find anyone showing how a specific organ...
Did you look through any scientific journals on EvoBio? No, you didn't.
But you are here making confident claims.
How do you make animations
I disagree strongly with subanima, when iphones first came out and jailbreaking was a big thing I "bricked" my iphone. It is now an incredibly expensive paper weight/mirror, multiple unintended functions!
Yeah... it came about by chance.
Haha, it’s kind of a treat seeing scientists praising the Intelligent Designer for His wisdom, while also denying His very existence.
@@special_stardust It seems their methodology is: if I can't see who did it, then nobody did it.
and also by natural selection.
as soon as there's good evidence for a creator, we can accept your superstitious claims.
@@zhou_sei this video uses engineering and design as an analogy for cellular functions because their precise, orderly, and timed, as if someone had ‘designed’ them. In this case, I think the burden of proof is on the evolutionist, that somehow a highly ordered system could arise from disorder, and information arise from nothing.
@@special_stardust the burden of proof for evolution/ common descent has been met bajillions of times over;
the mountain of good evidence will be QUITE the task to overcome for the MOST intrepid creationist.
"seeming" designed is not the same as "being" designed.
and most evolutionists say there's no any Intelligent Design?
What intelligent design is that?
what about god?
I thought that was a computer generated jet engine
Superb quality animations and math explantions, thanks for your hard work! There is only one major logical problem though, which is possibly subconcious. Here and there you were rightfully amazed by the seen nanoengineering, but on multiple occasions you gave glory to Nature. Why is that? What would you say to me if we both saw the engineering of a laptop or a phone or a airplane, and I would say absolutely no intelligence was behind them? Or, if we both saw the beauty of Mona Lisa painting, and I would say the same? Wouldn’t you say to me ”Nonsense!” or ”Impossible!” or ”Illogical”, and even prove to me with many examples that I’m being irrational. Now, when we awe before the technologically superior nanoengineering of life, then could you please pause for a moment and give all that glory to Creator. Consider these words, and start making your videos to glorify Father God, and you will see your life transform! Who is Father God? He is the One revealed by Son of God, Jesus = Yeshua of Christianity nearly 2000 years ago.
For more answers about Abiogenesis and Origin of Life, see Prof. Dr. James M. Tour’s channel: DrJamesTour. He is a synthetic chemist and has over 700 publications with over 100000 citations and is openly debating about these matters, proving from the first principles that scientifically we have no clue how life got started!
Calling it "God" or "laws of nature" is a just a difference in semantics as long as you don't strictly believe in a fictional book. I don't believe there is a "creator" but rather a set of rules that were there for eternity as far as we know. I mean most definitions of God also claim that he was there for eternity so there really is no difference. The word God has a less neutral and more negative connotation to me though since no people were killed for the laws of physics but rather the belief in a certain iteration of God. People are free to call it nature or god or whatsoever and nobody should be pushed to word it in a certain way.
as soon as you can provide me with a designed universe that we can analyze and know FOR SURE it's a designed universe, THEN we can compare OUR universe and see if it's designed.
we know the mona lisa was painted, and by whom... to within a pretty high degree of certainty.
@@MulmgottWhy not use Father God, revealed by Son of God? Judge the use of God’s name based on the original author, Jesus, not by the hypocrites that tried to use it for their personal gain… Bible is not a fictional book, for far too many historical reasons. Lee Strobel’s ”The Case for Christ” book summarizes those rather well. The key is that it is a historical library of books written by many eyewitnesses of what was Father God’s plan to save humanity from death and how he did it in Son of God, Jesus. It also reveals Jesus as Logos, who holds all things together. Here ”holds” is an active verb. Therefore, I would ask WHO is the so called laws of nature?
@@zhou_sei First, are you aware that universe (Latin root) literally means ”all things, everybody, all people, the whole world”? It does not make logical sense to ask me to show you another universe, because there is no other universe by definition.
Second, why don’t you look at things you can already see, instead of focusing on all things, which only God can do? Why do you require impossible top-down analysis, which even you can’t do yourself, when we all can already do bottom-up analysis?
The video was about life’s nanoengineering, of which design is a thing we can already assess with our reasoning based on the experimental evidence about how chemistry and physics work in the laboratory and what human creativity is capable of in the everyday life. We have overwhelming evidenve that it requires human intelligence to organize non-organic matter into an iPhone with all of its pre-programmed micro- and nanodevices. We have overwhelming evidence that it requires human creativity to organize color pigments on canvas into a masterpiece like Mona Lisa. Don’t you realize that humans are creators, or, to make it clear, images of Creator? The sufficient evidence has already been given to us… Would you be willing to admit this?
In conclusion, if we have courage to follow the evidence, then we must admit ”science” of abiogenesis is a fairytale or a fictional story with no basis in the known reality. Still today it has zero empirical evidence as support, yet it is falsely hyped by media and religiously defended by ”scientists”, so badly that real scientists are shut off from challenging the narrative. If you dare, then see DrJamesTour channel for what chemistry without outside intelligence is actually capable of! If you dare, then also see Sky Scholar dismantle Standard Cosmology as well. If you dare, then also see Unzicker’s Real Physics dismantle Standard Physics as well. I could go on and on…
👍🙂👍