This tends to say that Mitochondria developed the ability to fight off other bacteria that might contend with it, IE, it became the king of the hill in its symbiotic position.
@@simonmasters3295well, I doubt that this lecture is intended for high caliber men, such as yourself. Happy now? Yes, we all understand that you are more educated in this field than the rest of us. Be proud of yourself internally.
there is often severe muscle wasting in people with cancer. one theory is called: Nuclear Meltdown, and it concerns mitochondria degradation. Michael Wiggs and his crew made a mouse model with implanted cancer cells and monitored the health of the mouse and many indications for four weeks, which is when the mice would be euthanized so they didn't die from the cancer. many of the indicators they monitored did NOT show a steady degradation, but instead would show minor degradation for the first three weeks, and then a LOT of degradation in the fourth week, and the mouse would be near death. But, when they monitored mitochondrial function, they noticed it degraded in a stepping stone fashion. this indicates that mitochondria show early changes we can investigate to see if we can intervene in the degradation process before severe muscle loss becomes deadly.
From what I understand; this presenter hasn't the faintest idea of how life began! I suppose he thinks the complexity of a cell originated from a series of fortunate "accidents."
Spectacular presentation! Thank you Dr. Joe LaManna! And thank you all those who helped create this video recording for RUclips. I am thrilled by everything that was said and my understanding of life's fundamental energy evolution is definitely enhanced. Well done!
@@patriciaburlow8469 You are correct! This guy did NOT explain how living cells were created. Just chemicals that were available. It’s like saying a junk pile of metals came together and a computer arise from the materials. Ridiculous at the highest levels.
Eukaryote = nucleus mitochondria converts ADP to ATP? Ah, it's all explained after 41 minutes, a hydrogen concentration gradient (between outer/inner membrane space and the matrix) creates the conversion. Amazing.
If all cells need energy, what was the thing that consumed the mitochondria and for what purpose? It didn't have energy without the mitochondria, so it wasn't a cell, so it wasn't metabolizing, so why did it eat anything at all?
I haven't watched this, but my understanding of the theory is that the ancestors of our body cells were using fermentation to get energy prior to the 'great oxygen event' when the earth was flooded with much more oxygen than before. That's when they went into symbiosis with the ancestors of mitochondria because they have the means to use oxygen for enegy. It seems to make some sense in that cells still have the ability to use a fermentation process when there's not enough oxygen present - as in marathon runners. Also, some people have explained cancer in terms of cells breaking their symbiotic relationship with mitochondria and going back to their primordial ways. However, I don't know what would have been in it for the ancient proto-mitochondria.
@@Eman_Puedama For fermentation tohappen you need first glycolysis / one glucose to two pyruvates / only two ATP and one NADP / then fermentation to ethanol or lactate / lactic acid , and the last will change quickly cellular ph which will denature DNA and proteins ! May be we will find ancient wine somewhere !
Procariota cells used fermentation for energy producing, untill there is fuel these cells will thrive. Once the fuel is off they die. In today time dr. Thomas Seyfried explain that this is actually a mechanism of developing cancer, when Eucaryote cell the mitochondria organelle is destroyed and the cell is turned into an ancient fermentable mode (cancer).
I had thought that this lecture would cover the kendling of the spark of life. But he seems to go from organic chemicals in comets straight to cyanobacteria. I am really curious how the ADP/ATP path came to dominate (almost m) all life. Was/is there no alternative to this pathway of generating and using energy in cells? Are there any organisms remaining today who use an alternative pathway to the ADP/ATP pathway?
@@KenJackson_US 😂😂😂 yes, a gand title. But he did not even present rekettsia cell parasites as genetically related to many mitochondria. Furthermore the find that protests in deep sea smoker environments cohabit the same area where Rikettsi parasitizes other microbes. So nothing really new. But then the title was quite grand and the field to cover was gigantic, but you are right there was very little evidence and a lot of conjecture. And admittedly it was not his specialty.
The answer is clear there are several alternatives and most are used in your cells. There are 3 direct chemical alternatives to ATP; GTP, UTP, and CTP. All 3 are used in your cells. For instance glycogen synthesis requires UTP not ATP and much cell signalling utilises GTP. DNA synthesis of course requires dATP, dGTP, dTTp, and dCTP. There are also proton gradients and Na+/K+ gradients both of which are utilised directly for metabolic energy as well as the role of proton gradients in aerobic metabolism. For example Eubacteria use H+ gradients to power motion via the bacterial flagellum.
@@davidwright7193: _"There are also proton gradients and Na+/K+ gradients ..."_ But surely you realize that the molecular machinery needed to maintain and use those gradients would be impossible to develop by chance, right? They are NOT the result of microbe-to-man evolution (and certainly not of abiogenesis).
@@davidwright7193 thank you! That is an excellent contribution. That answers a few questions and gives me new target to dig further. However, it sounds like these alternative metabolic paths are again used some kind of Phosphorus cycle?
@@spatrk6634 I think we have a definition, we just havent quite seen the 'singularity' ? Viruses and prions are good examples of where our definitions get murky. But it does appear that at some point, life just pops off. All factors come together and function as a system and it reaches a threshold in an instant of time.
@@deborahdean8867 best definition is by nasa. "self sustaining chemical system capable of darwinian evolution" what does singularity has to do with origins life? singularity is physics and no, life doesnt just pop off. earth is 4.5 billion years old. and oldest evidence of life we have is 3.8 billion. so it took around 700 000 000 years for life to form not an instant of time
@@spatrk6634 of course there was a moment that threshold was crossed, no matter what you believe. darwin evolution is still a theory and actually NASA doesnt define life, they explore space , and this explains why. You do not have life defined by a human mental construct. Life is defined by characteristics within itself. Saying something has to have the ability to adapt to be alive is also faulty. Biologists define life in the scientific world, not astronomers. A singularity is a coming together on a very basic level, it's the moment when all of the factors in question come to interact. And physics is very much about life because it underpins everything influencing or governing all. Same dynamics throughout all creation
Interesting content. i love this origins stuff. Also, the production of the video is very good. The audio is clear and constant. the lecturer is recorded head on, which I prefer. And MOST THRILLING, the graphics are presented head on with enough time for the viewer to actually read them. These criteria are logical and seem basic, but so many lectures are record that violate ALL these points. >_
The Fungus Penicillium uses oxygen just as we do, and just as other multicellular Fungi do, and as far as I know, they cannot ferment sugars. Yeasts, unicellular Fungi, can ferment sugars in absence of oxygen, and some of them van form ethanol through fermentation.
I'm an algorithm engineer (applied math education) and got into bioinformatics years ago. Took classes in MCB and used Lehninger for biochem. Great book. Bio is a field that is close to a shopping list of names and observations so I appreciate books like that where principles are the focus. Albert's MCB was also good
With the precise complexity of how the mitochodria functions at the molecular level, you cannot just miss to be in awe and realize that there must be the intelligent designer creator who must have created all these amazing processes to happen.
As a biochemist who follows the fact that natural phenomena have explanations based on physical or biological rules, the opinion that natural phenomena that some feel to be complex must have a designer is not scientifically verifiable and therefore it does not belong in the field of science. Evolution and molecular changes take place over millions of years. There is plenty of time for organized systems to evolve to what we see today, even if we do not know all the details. But that is what scientific research does. Uncover the rules, layer by layer.
If this is what you got from watching this video, then I don't know what to say. He explained how Eukaryotes got Mitochondrial purely through endosymbiosis. This is the endosymbiotic theory.
@@zephyrandboreas: _"... complex must have a designer is not scientifically verifiable ..."_ Hah! You seem to imply that the evolution of _any_ structure or protein in mitochondria *is* _"scientifically verifiable"._ They are not. The many protein components that make up the four complexes in the electron transfer chain fit together like 3D jigsaw puzzles. They all have to be there and be correctly shaped or it won't pump protons as designed. Same for ATP synthase. And without a properly formed inner membrane, the proton gradient won't be maintained. How did any of those components evolve in less than a trillion trillion trillion years? What mechanism?
What determines the mitochondrial density of a cell? Why would a protobacterium have existed that produces a bunch of ATP all by itself to then go into a symbiotic union with an Archaea?
Logical question and the answer is simple - mitochondria never existed as a prokaryotic organism . The number of mitochondria in cells are preprogrammed and also hormonally regulated , i.e. hyperinsulinaemia/ insulin resistance causes fragmentation and reduction in numbers of mitochondria in cells . Indeed aging might be coupled with damage of mitochondria .
@@danchokonstantinov6735 I never said that the mitochondria existed as a prokaryotic organism, rather as a protobacterium. But why would a bacterium, proto or otherwise, produce a bunch of ATP, and for what purpose?
The biology of that process is very interesting, very complex and only elucidated after the date of this lecture. But the symbiotic relationship between the acheaon and the protobacterium is much much older than the engulfing event and originally much more favourable to the Eubacterium. Initially acetate and NADH were passed to the Eubacterium which disposed of those waste products, using O2 making the local environment more anaerobic. It is only much later that the protobacterium gets engulfed and then enslaved by its host. The archaeon was probably a Hiemdalarchaeota (yes the guy on the rainbow bridge,it’s a long story) and certainly one of the Asgard archeaota. So tell any Christian to stuff it the Norse were right.
@@davidwright7193 You guys invent new subculture terminology only to confuse / yourselves ! You also freely & conveniently mix organic with non organic chemistry . Citrate - comes from cytoplasmic glycolysis ! NAD+ is synthesysed by the cell from oxaloacetate, metabolite of the TCA cycle . NAD+/NADH can not be transported across mitochondrial membranes, and NAD+ is one of regulators for the cytoplasmic glycolysis ! Biochemistry is integrated with genetics, as all those biochemical processes require enzymes, allosteric inhibitors/promoters and dependant on ph, T, catalyst, enzymes, concentration of substrates, energy status of the cell ....... Scientists offer MODELS of the mechanism and you offer NONE ! Indeed creation is science , evolution is religion .
Interesting, albeit a bit clumsy that the speaker would say out loud that there are 18 leading hypotheses for the origin of life (=18 "we don't knows") Yet if one should dare suggest a 19th hypothesis that is not materialist in nature, some people head straight to the fainting couch.
Unless you believe in magical spells, even if God created life He still used some chemical process. Hence life contains building blocks from the environment around them albeit synthesised.
@@JeffHole-wc1tc That's all fine and dandy. Just stop saying it's proven facts when it's just not true. Everything is suspect when it comes to the historic sciences!!! To be truly honest we haven't a clue about any of this!
@@JeffHole-wc1tc That is all fine and dandy, just stop pawning off educated guesses as if it is proven fact. That's the problem with the people that do research in the historical sciences. I'm highly suspect of them all, as we all should be!
51:23 not sure this analogy makes sense. A predating cell doesn’t get 10% of 10%, it gets 10% from the energy substrate in the bacteria, just like the bacteria did. Probably just doesn’t make sense to specialize eating other bacteria, which would limit yourself to wherever the other bacteria are growing, and since bacteria divide that fast, they would run out of the other bacteria end of story.
So, at the end of Part 1, If the Oxygen level in the atmosphere was 0.2%, then assuming no change in Nitrogen, then Carbon Dioxide must have been about 20%, and now they are switched with Oxygen at 20% and Carbon Dioxide at 0.2% or thereabouts...
Recommendation to pan the audience once with the camera at the beginning or end, if at all, but don't keep cutting away to them. It just adds cognitive load (it's distracting) and adds nothing of value for your viewers.
Perhaps the alchemical and metalurgy was a catalist for chain reactions that the ancients harvested energy from and at the same time bio gio genetic engineering happened that gave dominance to life forms that put themselves above others
Virat, the mitochondria gave up almost all of their genes, retaining only those related to their function producing ATP (37). Mitocondria do not any of the genes that bacteria have for movement, production of enzymes, etc. If you think of bacteria like a car (four wheels, engine, transmission, chassis, fuel tank, steering, throttle and brakes), the mitochondria are like having only the engine out of the car being used as a generator. Your question is asking "why can't I take that mitochondria and drive it around?"
Bitch, a eukaryotic cell is a membrane around a culture of bacteria. Like a wall around a kingdom. We are a society of bacteria and we ARE infectious from the earth's point of view. Look at a satellite map of a city. It's responsible bacteria that provide the evolutionary genome.
Because if it was, and in many cases it probably was, its host died. We're descended from a cell where this didn't happen, and instead the mitochondrion genome began to discard genes that didn't benefit the symbiotic relationship.
@@mcmanustony the DNA might be a pattern or set of amino acids. And the RNA might be able to transcribe that into the cell parts, but what information got there? Like how to absorb and process energy. Or to reproduce. Or information on making cell parts. Any and all information that provides the instructions on the processes of life. Way too much has to come together at one time . People should be smart enough to catch in that there is a definite design.
@@deborahdean8867 DNA is not made from amino acids. What do you get out of posting hopelessly stupid comments on subjects you’re too lazy to learn anything about?
@@mcmanustony so what you're saying is that you are good at specific facts, but have trouble with reading comprehension or concepts? Try making a relevant comment that shows you're smart
Thank you , This reminds me of all the late night studying. And hours of classes . That over many years need a upgrade. My study of meteorites has shown me that your exactly correct as to how , perfectly the seeding of life in space is automatically performed. That is we are silly to think we have to take plants and have planetary development . When the best conditions are available. The faster meteorites that form the planets . Are all set up to develop life with the planets core and the formation of a balanced heated chemical reaction , that is so exactly balanced. That it had to of been thought of before it was made to happen . As well as it’s in balance with planets with cores . That have sun systems to hold orbits to allow critical time to allow chemical and heat and pressure to release the bacteria . That is also occurring in the universe on those green zone planets . In fact life in its many forms . Must in fact be replicated as exactly or near exactly . By the laws of sciences by a very perfect creator who knows before he started what he his reaction would bring . That had to be very important to have had such a wide range of actions become perfectly balanced.
You didn't even touch on the most fundamental problem with the "origin of mitochondria". The *proteins.* There are a *lot* of proteins that have to be constructed just so to make it work at all. So how could they have been coded in less than a trillion trillion trillion years? If not random chance, then what mechanism? Natural selection can't work until there's an advantage. But there would be no advantage until it was almost complete.
@@arubaga" _"your question has to do with the complexity of the most primitive form of Ribose, ..."_ No. Absolutely not! Ribose is a tiny little five-carbon sugar. Mitochondria have a number of enormously complex molecular machines made up of tens of unique proteins each. Do you know about the four "complexes" in the electron transfer chain and ATP synthase? Those complexes have *proton pumps* that siphon off a little energy from glucose fragments and use it to force protons (hydrogen nuclei) into the area between the membranes. And ATP synthase uses the resulting energy store to forcibly attach phosphates to ADP to make ATP, the cell's universal energy carrier. Each of the many constituent proteins is very complex and must be precise. But none of them has any value without the whole system working, and the citrus cycle in front of it working, and the inner membrane being tight enough to imprison those slippery little protons. So how did all of that happen? It had to have all been designed and built before any of it would work, so natural selection doesn't apply.
There is a Ribosome focused video named "Build-a-Cell seminar Loren Williams: The Origins and Evolution of the Ribosome". Summary: Ribosome grew structurally by accretion to make proteins with more complex shapes. Ancient Ribosomes are in two pieces, much smaller, but can only make limited variety of proteins.
@@arubaga: _"There is a Ribosome focused video ..."_ Oh! Your original comment (did you delete it?) referenced ribose, not the ribosome. Ribosome makes a little more sense, though my answer is still very applicable. The problem of how the ribosome could have evolved is indeed a huge problem. But even if we assume there's a functional ribosome, you still have to answer how all those crucially important proteins in the mitochondria got coded into DNA. The only plausible answer that's ever been proposed is that an intelligent agent designed them.
@@mcmanustony it does when it's almost literally mathematically impossible for all these factors to come together at once in such a finely tuned fashion by evolution? The process of random change? That's where you get into the mathematically impossible factor. Anyone capable of designing life on earth, humans, is going to be beyond our recognition or understanding. We'd be lucky to have any perception at all. And it makes it more interesting to think about just how the tales/stories/rules as to how we SHOULD behave/live came to be since they're so perfect.
I didn't hear you say that *most* of the many proteins needed to construct mitochondria are coded in the *nucleus,* _not_ in the mitochondrial DNA. If it started as a separate life form, how did the genes transition to the nucleus? How plausible is that?
I don't want to sound mean but this speaker would benefit from some public speaking training. He has a maddening speaking style that alternates between halting, half sentences filled with lots of ums and ahs, followed by bursts of technical jargon, followed by more half sentences. There's often just too much detail when a simpler explanation would suffice. It often felt like the proverbial guy explaining how a watch is constructed in response to the question "what time is it?". I was able to follow along only because I'm already familiar with most of the subjects discussed here.
Wow! and here was me thinking that Americans were all science deniers and creationists ! How fabulous to (yet again) be reminded of the incredible advances of scientific knowledge as well as the comforting realisation of the link each of us has with every other living thing past and present. 56:39
So how come with all this information, the population as a whole have not been educated generally, but let religion to pollute and also run far too many institutions and get to influence the secular, to where now have the political current situation, so acidic to knowledge and progress? Progress to develop, but to deal with the real problems that are affecting badly, life on this planet. Tolerance to it?
He shows how energy is produced from sugar, and ignores that mitochondria also produce energy from fat, but even more efficiently. WTF? Unless i missed something that's a hugely misleading presentation that suggests mashmallows are necessary for life. :o
lets then take a more advanced look at photosynthesis so that we may understand weather life without design is likely: How many people realise today that we cant reproduce the process of photosynthesis today, despite all our computers and labouratories? We cant reproduce it, thats how complex the biochemistry is. Why and how would evolution go about trying to produce a protein for binding pigment molecules before pigment molecules existed? If chlorophyll evolved before the antenna proteins that bind it, it would in all likelihood destroy the cell, so the proteins had to evolve first. But natural selection could not favour a ‘newly evolved’ protein which could bind chlorophyll and other pigment molecules before those crucial pigments had themselves come into existence! Each binding site must be engineered to bind chlorophyll a or chlorophyll b only or carotene only. The carotene molecules must be present in just the right places for quenching triplet states in the chlorophylls. Even if the pigment molecules were already around, producing just the right protein would be an extremely difficult task. It would not only have to bind pigment molecules only, but it would need to bind just the right pigments in just the right places in just the right orientation so that energy could be transferred perfectly between them, with a little lower energy at each step. Anything else would do nothing, or would transfer energy at random, and the complex would accomplish nothing at best and burn up the cell at worst. And there is another problem for evolution. The insertion of the pigment molecules changes the conformation of the apoprotein from about 20% to about 60% α-helical content.45 So evolution would have to produce a protein with a wrong shape that would assume just the right shape by the insertion of pigment molecules in just the right positions and orientations when those pigment molecules had not yet evolved. The energy transfer timeframe between pigment molecules in the antenna complex is between 10-15 and 10-9 seconds. The system that God engineered captures 95-99% of the photon energy for photochemistry, even though there are four other ways the energy can be lost during the slightly less than a billionth of a second the system has for capturing it.46 Humans certainly cannot begin to design systems with such efficiency, but the evolutionists are determined that chance, what Cairns-Smith47 calls ‘old fumble fingers’, can. Our understanding of the assembly of apoproteins with their pigments is very poor, but we do know that the chloroplast encoded chlorophyll a binding proteins of PSI and PSII core complexes are inserted cotranslationally into the thylakoid. Protein intermediates of the D1 protein have been observed due to ribosome pausing. It may be that this ribosome pausing permits cotranslational binding of chlorophyll a to the protein. This kind of controlled insertion, with synthesis of otherwise phototoxic material, is precisely what we would expect from intelligent planning and forethought, but how might ‘old fumble fingers’47 hit on such a scheme? All of the parts must be shipped to the right location, and all must be the right size and shape, down to the very tiniest detail. ATP synthase is an irreducibly complex motor-a proton-driven motor divided into rotor and stator portions as described and illustrated earlier in this paper. Protons can flow freely through the CF0 complex without the CF1 complex, so that if it evolved first, a pH gradient could not have been established within the thylakoids. The δ and critical χ protein subunits of the CF1 complex are synthesized in the cytosol and imported into the chloroplast in everything from Chlorella to Eugenia in the plant kingdom. All of the parts must be shipped to the right location, and all must be the right size and shape, down to the very tiniest detail. Using a factory assembly line as an analogy, after all the otherwise useless and meaningless parts have been manufactured in different locations and shipped in to a central location, they are then assembled, and, if all goes as intended, they fit together perfectly to produce something useful. But the whole process has been carefully designed to function in that way. The whole complex must be manufactured and assembled in just one certain way, or nothing works at all. Since nothing works until everything works, there is no series of intermediates that natural selection could have followed gently up the back slope of mount impossible. The little proton-driven motor known as ATP synthase consists of eight different subunits, totalling more than 20 polypeptide* chains, and is an order of magnitude smaller than the bacterial flagellar motor, which is equally impossible for evolutionists to explain. Evolution cannot account for the assembly and activation of rubisco. All attempts to reconstitute a 16-unit rubisco from any source have failed, so the assembly of rubisco must be studied in the chloroplast extracts. The eight large (L) subunits of rubisco are coded by the chloroplast DNA, and the eight small (S) subunits by nuclear DNA. The S subunit of rubisco is synthesized on free cytosolic polyribosomes* and maintained even during synthesis in an unfolded state by chaperones* of the Hsp70 class and their protein partners. When the small unit is brought to the import complex of the chloroplast, the fourteen-polypeptide chloroplast Cpn60 chaperonin protein associates with IAP100 (protein) of the import complex and can also associate with mature imported small subunits. The chloroplast Cpn60 chaperone is similar to the E. coli GroEl protein. After the unfolded precursor protein enters the stromal space, it binds briefly to a stromal Hsp70 chaperone protein and the N terminal targeting sequence is cleaved. The large subunits of the rubisco enzyme are produced by the DNA and machinery of the chloroplast itself and stored complexed to a Cpn60 chaperonin.This chaperone protein keeps the large subunit protein from folding incorrectly, and therefore becoming useless, and is also necessary for the proper binding of the eight large subunits; without it they will form a useless clump. In many plants, the large subunits are chemically modified by specialized enzymes before they bind to the chaperonin protein. There is strong evidence that chloroplast Cpn60, Cpn21 and Hsp70 also participate in the assembly of the sixteen-unit rubisco complex. After a soluble L8 core is formed with the assistance of the chaperonin proteins, tetramers (four-part complexes) of small subunits bind to the top and bottom of the complex to form the complete enzyme. There are almost certainly other chaperones and chaperone-like polypeptides or lipo-proteins involved that are not yet characterized but i cant write a textbook here. How do evolutionists explain how natural selection would have favoured a protein complex the function of which was to prevent a still-useless rubisco small subunit from folding outside the chloroplast? Before it evolved a way to get the protein inside, there would be no benefit from keeping it unfolded outside. How could blind chance ‘know’ it needed to cause large subunit polypeptides to fold ‘correctly’ and to keep them from clumping? It could not ‘anticipate’ the ‘correct’ conformation before the protein became useful. And evolution would need to be clever indeed to chemically modify something not yet useful so that it could be folded ‘correctly’ when even the ‘correctly’ folded polypeptide would not yet become useful.
Copy and paste from some stooge Creationist book so let's cut it short= Your preferred version of invisible supernatural skywizard used his magic and you have read enough material in the field of Evolutionary biology and have run extensive molecular biology experiments PLUS you obviously know better than the scientific consensus plus you have a personal hotline to your preferred supernatural superbeeing that told you this Creationist mumbo jumbo. 😆 I highly suggest you look up methodological empiricism and the scientific method, maybe some Karl Popper and the classics from Darwin, Wallace,Huxley, Dobzhansky, Mayr, Fisher, Carroll etc...and then come back. Thank you. And concerning Photosynthesis and the mitochondria I highly suggest you also brush up on Endosymbiosis theory and quantum biology. Thanks. Evolutionary biology isn't just hardcore Natural selection as proposed by Darwin & Wallace. There are other mechanisms that explain both better than your " bUt NaTuRaL sElEcTIoN nOt Jesus so baaad demon science !!! " Copy and paste Pseudoscience comment. Nick Lane has two great books that explain both - photosynthesis and the mitochondria - in great detail. The Vital Question & Life Ascending: Ten Great Inventions of Evolution. I assume you got this from Michael " Astrology is science " Behe...sounds just like him🙄
*Platz:* _"Since nothing works until everything works, there is no series of intermediates that natural selection could have followed gently up the back slope of mount impossible."_ Very well said! That summarizes in one sentence why microbe-to-man evolution is a fairy story.
*Platz:* _"How do evolutionists explain how natural selection would have favoured a protein complex the function of which was to prevent a still-useless rubisco small subunit from folding outside the chloroplast?"_ Very good question. But I know the answer based on what I've seen over and over. They: 1) Ignore the facts, 2) Call you a liar for stating the facts, 3) Claim God doesn't even exist, 4) Vaguely claim natural selection has unenumerated super powers, 5) Cite *authority* in which they have total faith and 6) Call you stupid for questioning the authority in which they have total faith.
@@robertlunn3678 well, I learned about it back then. How could I if nobody knew? Its basic cell biology. There's really nothing new about mitochondria here, it's the powerhouse of the cell. They have always been fascinated with this conversion if energy. If you could harness this somehow. Your energy would be almost limitless. Especially to produce ATP, adenosine triphosphate . But these chemical processes were already known. The references to evolution is simply a theoretical type science like they do in mathematics speculating dimensions. I don't know why you think this wasnt known 50 years ago. I learned about mitochondria in high school, and more layer in college micro biology, physiology, anatomy. I think they run a scam on us today, acting like people today are so modern and wise and know so much more than in times past. What a joke. Dont believe it. We've made a few new tools, but have not become smarter or more advanced and civilized .
The point is: this is mostly school level stuff (or maybe at the level of popular science magazines) one learns in biology class. While it is astounding that we live only one (or maybe two) generation(s) after it was discovered, it still isn’t news for most people who had 10-12 years of school, or have been reading some magazines in the last 40 years.
Is it impossible to get these folks with this knowledge to get better at presenting? I’ve head nothing but pounding from his hand waving. Important stuff which one has to pay attention to understand and they’re throwing in distractions. I know , I know, it’s “ get off my lawn stuff but please
His start about water coming from meteorites is badly wrong. The Earth build from near absolute zero meteorites. There was not heat and volcanism at the beginning. The atmosphere is the result of the mass of the Earth, so it was there from the beginning. But it is true that there was not much Oxygen, nearly all Nitrogen.
There is an electrical voltage that exists at least on the surface of the earth. With the recent discoveries of the importance of bio electricity, it might be found that these that run through the ground on our planet might be an important ingrediant in the formation of life from the begining.
8:49 How about Inteligent Design? ID is prety much what we see in the astonishing complexity of Mithocondria, Ribosoms, DNA, and Life in general...Most of the "leading" hypotesis are only Garbage, Lies, Errors, Why mention them as "leading" in the first place?
@@mcmanustony ID is science. It is mathematically improbable to the point of impossibility that all these finely tuned details to develop by chance because you need one process for another. How ever, it is mathematically highly probable that a designer was involved . So if it's science you want , mathematics alone can prove that an IDer is the likely source of life rather than our theory of evolution. Man really should be smart enough to get the hing that there is a designer. Intelligent enough to see the complexity involved that would REQUIRE a designer. THAT is really the litmus test for human intelligence as a species. If man doesn't have the intelligence to 'see' the complexity and recognize the patterns, he isnt very advanced. This is a very basic level of intelligence, this recognition
The “probabilities” calculated by ID proponents are ludicrous because they assume simultaneity was required rather than stepwise evolution. They also ignore the astronomical number of prokaryotes that covered the early earth, multiplied by the astronomical number of cell divisions that occurred over billions of years before the first eukaryotes emerged. Saying it all happened by someone waving a magic wand is an easy way to explain anything that one’s is ignorant of.
There are FIVE information codes in every cell, aside from blood cells. The five are the DNA code, the mtDNA code, the epigenome code, the 'sugar' code that lines the surface of every cell, and the lipid code making up cell membranes. All these had to work in unison. The makeup of these for life are mathematical impossibilities-by-chance. To say the ribosome sums up evolution is ludicrous. That is defined as a 10^50 or more. It's far too complex without outside intelligence to make it happen. On top of this, the Intelligent Designer is a master chemist with 65 different hormones in the human body. We are a creation.. Not an evolution. All classic and written-about adaptations in peer review papers are epigenome-derived. The actions of the epigenome is called epigenetics. The metamorphosis of the butterfly from a caterpillar is done by epigenetics. The Darwin Finch got its beak adaptations epigenetically...not by the theorized evolution means is by the same means...just without the metamorphosis. Found to be a fact by Dr. Michael Skinner in 2014. Evolution is a theory. Epigenetic-derived adaptations is a materially found fact instead. Theory vs. fact? Go with the facts! All of these epigenetic-derived adaptations had an ASSUMPTION of evolving DNA mutations. This assumption is a false precept. This false precept was called wrongly 'microevolution'. Then this false building block was used to say 'macroevolution' came from these little steps. The absurd claim of genome degeneration causing evolutionary generation is comic book science. We are from an intelligent design. The intelligent designer? Jesus Christ! Call upon his name in faith to receive the free gift of eternal life right now! Mis-expression of the genes or the sequence of the mtDNA causes diseases. In healthy people it is finely tuned. This fits the intelligent design paradigm.
*Mary:* _"..., the 'sugar' code that lines the surface of every cell, ..."_ I don't understand this. Is the outside of every lipid bi-layer sugar coated? What sugar? *Mary:* _"... the lipid code making up cell membranes."_ My understanding is that if the right lipids are created in quantity, they will self assemble into a lipid by-layer. So are you referring to the specific lipid particle itself? Wouldn't that be coded in the enzymes that construct them? Or do you mean the correct mixture of lipids, cholesterol and transfer proteins? Wouldn't this be coded in the (poorly understood) gene regulatory network that coordinates the production of all the needed components? The fact that life was designed is inescapable for anyone who seriously looks. But there are still many many details that I don't understand.
@@KenJackson_US Very good questions. Here is a cut and paste you can put in your web search on the 'sugar code'. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › 28709806The sugar code: Why glycans are so important - PubMed The enzymatic machinery for the biosynthesis of sugar chains can indeed link monosaccharides, the letters of the third alphabet of life, in a manner to reach an unsurpassed number of oligomers
...and put this cut and paste in your search bar on the lipid code...it's not just 'bi-layer but amounts into THOUSANDS of configurations. Every cell can create thousands of different lipids. However, little is known how this chemical lipid diversity contributes to the transport of messages within the cell, in other words, the lipid code of the cell is still unknown. This is mainly due to the lack of methods to quantitatively study lipid function in living cells. An understanding of how lipids work is very important because they control the function of proteins throughout the cell and are involved in bringing important substances into the cell through the cell membrane. In this process it is fascinating that only a limited number of lipid classes on the inside of the cell membrane act as messenger molecules, but they receive messages from thousands of different receptor proteins. It is still not clear, how this abundance of messages can still be easily recognized and transmitted.
Can someone talk to the bald guy with the blue shirt and tell him to listen to the lecture. His questions are distracting and non-relevant. And.... he keeps coming to all these lectures.
There are FIVE information codes in every cell, aside from blood cells. The five are the DNA code, the mtDNA code, the epigenome code, the 'sugar' code that lines the surface of every cell, and the lipid code making up cell membranes. All these had to work in unison. The makeup of these for life are mathematical impossibilities-by-chance. To say the ribosome sums up evolution is ludicrous. That is defined as a 10^50 or more. It's far too complex without outside intelligence to make it happen. On top of this, the Intelligent Designer is a master chemist with 65 different hormones in the human body. We are a creation.. Not an evolution. All classic and written-about adaptations in peer review papers are epigenome-derived. The actions of the epigenome is called epigenetics. The metamorphosis of the butterfly from a caterpillar is done by epigenetics. The Darwin Finch got its beak adaptations epigenetically...not by the theorized evolution means is by the same means...just without the metamorphosis. Found to be a fact by Dr. Michael Skinner in 2014. Evolution is a theory. Epigenetic-derived adaptations is a materially found fact instead. Theory vs. fact? Go with the facts! All of these epigenetic-derived adaptations had an ASSUMPTION of evolving DNA mutations. This assumption is a false precept. This false precept was called wrongly 'microevolution'. Then this false building block was used to say 'macroevolution' came from these little steps. The absurd claim of genome degeneration causing evolutionary generation is comic book science. We are from an intelligent design. The intelligent designer? Jesus Christ! Call upon his name in faith to receive the free gift of eternal life right now! Mis-expression of the genes or the sequence of the mtDNA causes diseases. In healthy people it is finely tuned. This fits the intelligent design paradigm.
You believe in scientism, not science. 'Evolution' is actually combining the epigenome and the DNA information codes as being one. Adaptations to changed environments, diets, or new threats are PRE-ABILITY of the epigenome code...not from DNA mutations being naturally selected into new configurations for the adaptations. The mish-mashing of the two as one, has been a big sleight of hand. Epigenome-derived adaptations have been wrongly called 'microevolution'. This huge precept of evolution was used to prop up all the mind-constructs of macroevolution such as humans coming from hominids or whales coming from a land animal. Antibiotic resistance by bacteria are largely epigenome-derived. Coming from the pre-enabled epigenome, it takes on an intelligent design signature. Then naturally, there are effects from mutations such as new traits, phenotypes, and speciation. Evolutionists used these as being evolution BUT are just effects from DNA or chromosomal mutations. It's not evolution. There's your logistics. There's your science. This is how the smoke and mirrors of the theory of evolution works. We are from an intelligent design by Jesus Christ...known as The Word in Genesis. You have 'models' based on chance arguments and framed preponderance of the evidence presentations. The mentors you selected to listen to then tell you what you should conclude. They have convinced you of ignoring the opposition's evidence is 'intellectual'. Self-blinding yourself to opposing evidence makes your information-challenged. It's called aggressive incuriosity. The model of intelligent design has its chance arguments amounting to mathematical impossibilities-by-chance as shown in my post. Preponderance of the evidence demonstrations of the truth are many from many different fields and ways.@@rockmusicvideoreviewer896
Give me a break make rna in the lab and ill understand how mitrochondria was made 70 yrs after miller eury and nothing first stuff made first explain how rna is made or membrane not mitrochondria is the master piece of life its perfect in design how did lipids carbohydrates and nucleotides combine what is the mechanism we dont know good point on nitrogen
Anyone can try anything like, for instance, trying to find out how a mouse trap would appear on the Moon's surface? How can I capitalize on a donkey's intelligence? Time is a God-given gift, capitalize it by investigating evidence whether it's according to your opinion or not. First, accept the fact that we are here without having asked. we are free-will individuals with personality and a moral sense; therefore we are accountable for it. The essence of living together lies in who am I regarding my neighbor. Ask and you will find it, knock and it will open. Why has anybody in the universe ever approached us on Earth, except for Jesus Christ, who resurrected at least three real people with friends and family to witness such an important event? Jesus while on earth among mankind, eating and drinking said that he would resurrect too and he did after three days, being under Roman guard, after he was found dead and pierced his heart by a spike.
Indeed. He sees a shockingly excellent design but instead of asking who designed it, he asserts it MUST have evolved, and then proceeds to totally ignore all evidence against a "natural" origin.
@@dionysusnow Yawn. Old question. It wasn't a very good question to begin with. No one designed the one that has always existed. Simple logic says something or someone MUST have always existed, otherwise nothing could ever exist. Ever. You're also engaging an old tactic to cover for your lack. You know there's no way you can defend a magical evolutionary origin of mitochondria, so you're trying to flip the discussion to the Lord God, whom you know can't be analyzed using science. (How could the author of all physics and chemistry possibly be subject to them?)
nice story as per usual always glossing over the important stuff. That chirality question is a killer why all sugars are used by life always righted handed and the amino acids left-handed. as usual the answer is aliens did it
I must confess, this Joe LaManna brought in a broad multi-disciplinary gathering of info to make his points and did so quite effectively.
This tends to say that Mitochondria developed the ability to fight off other bacteria that might contend with it, IE, it became the king of the hill in its symbiotic position.
That was an excellent talk. Congratulations Joe LaManna.
one of the best lecture i have heard with so much science
5:17 panspermia to me is so freaking awesome and scary. Loot crates full of organic compounds from who knows where, just waiting to land in an ocean
Watch the opening scene of the movie "Prometheus" it is the most amazing depiction of panspermia I've ever scene
Panspermia is purely imaginary
Whoa, this is the best illustration and explanation of the electron transport chain...41:53...I've ever seen or heard.
You may want to listen to Jack Kruse as well.
41:53
Thoroughly enjoyable exposition, well done.
That was so informative! Fantastic! Thank you!
To sum it up, *mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell*
If you feel the need to summarise things to that level then forgive me for summarising your learning process and knowledge as simplification.
@@simonmasters3295 Know your meme...
Wow. Original.
@@simonmasters3295well, I doubt that this lecture is intended for high caliber men, such as yourself. Happy now? Yes, we all understand that you are more educated in this field than the rest of us. Be proud of yourself internally.
That’s exactly how Paul Ehrlich (Nobel price laureate) described mitochondria more than 100 years ago
Great talk. Thank you.
there is often severe muscle wasting in people with cancer.
one theory is called: Nuclear Meltdown, and it concerns mitochondria degradation.
Michael Wiggs and his crew made a mouse model with implanted cancer cells and monitored the health of the mouse and many indications for four weeks, which is when the mice would be euthanized so they didn't die from the cancer.
many of the indicators they monitored did NOT show a steady degradation, but instead would show minor degradation for the first three weeks, and then a LOT of degradation in the fourth week, and the mouse would be near death.
But, when they monitored mitochondrial function, they noticed it degraded in a stepping stone fashion.
this indicates that mitochondria show early changes we can investigate to see if we can intervene in the degradation process before severe muscle loss becomes deadly.
Lots of prestigiistation in this presentation.
Thank you for the new word.
*prestidigitation* - conjuring tricks performed as entertainment.
From what I understand; this presenter hasn't the faintest idea of how life began!
I suppose he thinks the complexity of a cell originated from a series of fortunate "accidents."
Spectacular presentation! Thank you Dr. Joe LaManna! And thank you all those who helped create this video recording for RUclips. I am thrilled by everything that was said and my understanding of life's fundamental energy evolution is definitely enhanced. Well done!
After just listening to this guy, made me a firm believer in creation
@@patriciaburlow8469 That's a common theme, to become a believer in creation, with people who's brains have not evolved enough to understand science.
@@patriciaburlow8469
You are correct! This guy did NOT explain how living cells were created. Just chemicals that were available. It’s like saying a junk pile of metals came together and a computer arise from the materials. Ridiculous at the highest levels.
Amazing to see the advancing Frontier of knowledge and how much we are getting closer to know our beginnings. Hats off to all the great scientists
Comprehensive work.
Eukaryote = nucleus
mitochondria converts ADP to ATP? Ah, it's all explained after 41 minutes, a hydrogen concentration gradient (between outer/inner membrane space and the matrix) creates the conversion. Amazing.
Yes, ADP is a precursor to ATP
That’s my face too (5:54). A face of ‘Yes, this is good stuff.’
If all cells need energy, what was the thing that consumed the mitochondria and for what purpose? It didn't have energy without the mitochondria, so it wasn't a cell, so it wasn't metabolizing, so why did it eat anything at all?
@@schmetterling4477 But then how does it have energy? And why haven't prokaryotes had endosymbiosis?
I haven't watched this, but my understanding of the theory is that the ancestors of our body cells were using fermentation to get energy prior to the 'great oxygen event' when the earth was flooded with much more oxygen than before. That's when they went into symbiosis with the ancestors of mitochondria because they have the means to use oxygen for enegy.
It seems to make some sense in that cells still have the ability to use a fermentation process when there's not enough oxygen present - as in marathon runners. Also, some people have explained cancer in terms of cells breaking their symbiotic relationship with mitochondria and going back to their primordial ways.
However, I don't know what would have been in it for the ancient proto-mitochondria.
@@Eman_Puedama For fermentation tohappen you need first glycolysis / one glucose to two pyruvates / only two ATP and one NADP / then fermentation to ethanol or lactate / lactic acid , and the last will change quickly cellular ph which will denature DNA and proteins ! May be we will find ancient wine somewhere !
Procariota cells used fermentation for energy producing, untill there is fuel these cells will thrive. Once the fuel is off they die. In today time dr. Thomas Seyfried explain that this is actually a mechanism of developing cancer, when Eucaryote cell the mitochondria organelle is destroyed and the cell is turned into an ancient fermentable mode (cancer).
Cool. Thanks for sharing.
But doesn't the ultimate question concern the information encoded in the DNA sequence?
I had thought that this lecture would cover the kendling of the spark of life. But he seems to go from organic chemicals in comets straight to cyanobacteria.
I am really curious how the ADP/ATP path came to dominate (almost m) all life. Was/is there no alternative to this pathway of generating and using energy in cells?
Are there any organisms remaining today who use an alternative pathway to the ADP/ATP pathway?
Good questions. This guy just presented mythology.
@@KenJackson_US 😂😂😂 yes, a gand title. But he did not even present rekettsia cell parasites as genetically related to many mitochondria.
Furthermore the find that protests in deep sea smoker environments cohabit the same area where Rikettsi parasitizes other microbes.
So nothing really new. But then the title was quite grand and the field to cover was gigantic, but you are right there was very little evidence and a lot of conjecture.
And admittedly it was not his specialty.
The answer is clear there are several alternatives and most are used in your cells. There are 3 direct chemical alternatives to ATP; GTP, UTP, and CTP. All 3 are used in your cells. For instance glycogen synthesis requires UTP not ATP and much cell signalling utilises GTP. DNA synthesis of course requires dATP, dGTP, dTTp, and dCTP.
There are also proton gradients and Na+/K+ gradients both of which are utilised directly for metabolic energy as well as the role of proton gradients in aerobic metabolism. For example Eubacteria use H+ gradients to power motion via the bacterial flagellum.
@@davidwright7193: _"There are also proton gradients and Na+/K+ gradients ..."_
But surely you realize that the molecular machinery needed to maintain and use those gradients would be impossible to develop by chance, right? They are NOT the result of microbe-to-man evolution (and certainly not of abiogenesis).
@@davidwright7193 thank you! That is an excellent contribution. That answers a few questions and gives me new target to dig further.
However, it sounds like these alternative metabolic paths are again used some kind of Phosphorus cycle?
But what is the chemical reaction or process that produced FIRST lifeform, whatever that may be? How does something go from non-life to life?
abiogenisis.
there is no single definition of what life is.
so its hard to tell a point where non-life becomes alive.
Thank you. That's very enlightening. Everything is so much clearer now.
@@spatrk6634 I think we have a definition, we just havent quite seen the 'singularity' ? Viruses and prions are good examples of where our definitions get murky. But it does appear that at some point, life just pops off. All factors come together and function as a system and it reaches a threshold in an instant of time.
@@deborahdean8867 best definition is by nasa.
"self sustaining chemical system capable of darwinian evolution"
what does singularity has to do with origins life?
singularity is physics
and no, life doesnt just pop off.
earth is 4.5 billion years old.
and oldest evidence of life we have is 3.8 billion.
so it took around 700 000 000 years for life to form
not an instant of time
@@spatrk6634 of course there was a moment that threshold was crossed, no matter what you believe. darwin evolution is still a theory and actually NASA doesnt define life, they explore space , and this explains why. You do not have life defined by a human mental construct. Life is defined by characteristics within itself. Saying something has to have the ability to adapt to be alive is also faulty. Biologists define life in the scientific world, not astronomers. A singularity is a coming together on a very basic level, it's the moment when all of the factors in question come to interact. And physics is very much about life because it underpins everything influencing or governing all. Same dynamics throughout all creation
Interesting content. i love this origins stuff. Also, the production of the video is very good. The audio is clear and constant. the lecturer is recorded head on, which I prefer. And MOST THRILLING, the graphics are presented head on with enough time for the viewer to actually read them.
These criteria are logical and seem basic, but so many lectures are record that violate ALL these points. >_
2:48 from all we know, energy can only be manipulated but not generated.
The Fungus Penicillium uses oxygen just as we do, and just as other multicellular Fungi do, and as far as I know, they cannot ferment sugars. Yeasts, unicellular Fungi, can ferment sugars in absence of oxygen, and some of them van form ethanol through fermentation.
19:05 Where he starts on the actual topic.
Lehninger's Principles was one of my favorite texts.
I'm an algorithm engineer (applied math education) and got into bioinformatics years ago. Took classes in MCB and used Lehninger for biochem. Great book. Bio is a field that is close to a shopping list of names and observations so I appreciate books like that where principles are the focus. Albert's MCB was also good
With the precise complexity of how the mitochodria functions at the molecular level, you cannot just miss to be in awe and realize that there must be the intelligent designer creator who must have created all these amazing processes to happen.
As a biochemist who follows the fact that natural phenomena have explanations based on physical or biological rules, the opinion that natural phenomena that some feel to be complex must have a designer is not scientifically verifiable and therefore it does not belong in the field of science. Evolution and molecular changes take place over millions of years. There is plenty of time for organized systems to evolve to what we see today, even if we do not know all the details. But that is what scientific research does. Uncover the rules, layer by layer.
If this is what you got from watching this video, then I don't know what to say.
He explained how Eukaryotes got Mitochondrial purely through endosymbiosis. This is the endosymbiotic theory.
You can be in “awe” without adding even more, might I say unnecessary and inefficient, complexity to the process.
@@yoso585 He said what he wanted to say and he knows more than you do on that specific topic. Why should I take you seriously?
@@zephyrandboreas: _"... complex must have a designer is not scientifically verifiable ..."_
Hah! You seem to imply that the evolution of _any_ structure or protein in mitochondria *is* _"scientifically verifiable"._ They are not. The many protein components that make up the four complexes in the electron transfer chain fit together like 3D jigsaw puzzles. They all have to be there and be correctly shaped or it won't pump protons as designed. Same for ATP synthase. And without a properly formed inner membrane, the proton gradient won't be maintained. How did any of those components evolve in less than a trillion trillion trillion years? What mechanism?
What determines the mitochondrial density of a cell?
Why would a protobacterium have existed that produces a bunch of ATP all by itself to then go into a symbiotic union with an Archaea?
Logical question and the answer is simple - mitochondria never existed as a prokaryotic organism . The number of mitochondria in cells are preprogrammed and also hormonally regulated , i.e. hyperinsulinaemia/ insulin resistance causes fragmentation and reduction in numbers of mitochondria in cells . Indeed aging might be coupled with damage of mitochondria .
@@danchokonstantinov6735 I never said that the mitochondria existed as a prokaryotic organism, rather as a protobacterium. But why would a bacterium, proto or otherwise, produce a bunch of ATP, and for what purpose?
@@steffenfrost Ah,… purpose. Not need. Only survival. It’s just gotta work. Call it evolution.
The biology of that process is very interesting, very complex and only elucidated after the date of this lecture. But the symbiotic relationship between the acheaon and the protobacterium is much much older than the engulfing event and originally much more favourable to the Eubacterium. Initially acetate and NADH were passed to the Eubacterium which disposed of those waste products, using O2 making the local environment more anaerobic. It is only much later that the protobacterium gets engulfed and then enslaved by its host. The archaeon was probably a Hiemdalarchaeota (yes the guy on the rainbow bridge,it’s a long story) and certainly one of the Asgard archeaota. So tell any Christian to stuff it the Norse were right.
@@davidwright7193 You guys invent new subculture terminology only to confuse / yourselves ! You also freely & conveniently mix organic with non organic chemistry . Citrate - comes from cytoplasmic glycolysis ! NAD+ is synthesysed by the cell from oxaloacetate, metabolite of the TCA cycle . NAD+/NADH can not be transported across mitochondrial membranes, and NAD+ is one of regulators for the cytoplasmic glycolysis ! Biochemistry is integrated with genetics, as all those biochemical processes require enzymes, allosteric inhibitors/promoters and dependant on ph, T, catalyst, enzymes, concentration of substrates, energy status of the cell ....... Scientists offer MODELS of the mechanism and you offer NONE ! Indeed creation is science , evolution is religion .
Did it come from space randomly or was it put here..
Interesting, albeit a bit clumsy that the speaker would say out loud that there are 18 leading hypotheses for the origin of life (=18 "we don't knows")
Yet if one should dare suggest a 19th hypothesis that is not materialist in nature, some people head straight to the fainting couch.
Well... if you allow fantasy then the number of hypotheses becomes infinite.
Unless you believe in magical spells, even if God created life He still used some chemical process. Hence life contains building blocks from the environment around them albeit synthesised.
@@jonstfrancis It only logical that God would create humans using the materials and processes he put in place.
@@capecarver Yes, so the whatever way life first appeared is the same whether you call it creation or evolution?
@@jonstfrancis Creation and evolution are separate topics. Plausible theories have been offered for evolution. None yet for origin of life.
I'd love to see a count of how many times we hear " we assume, we believe, we postulate, we hope" etc.
watch it again and count them, then report back with your count
@@rockmusicvideoreviewer896 Knock yourself out skippy!
That's all we can do... based on what we can see and observe and measure. It never helps to throw up our hands and claim magic.
@@JeffHole-wc1tc That's all fine and dandy. Just stop saying it's proven facts when it's just not true. Everything is suspect when it comes to the historic sciences!!! To be truly honest we haven't a clue about any of this!
@@JeffHole-wc1tc That is all fine and dandy, just stop pawning off educated guesses as if it is proven fact. That's the problem with the people that do research in the historical sciences. I'm highly suspect of them all, as we all should be!
some great fanfic
Please stop those unnecessary shots of the audience watching... Adds nothing to story and subtracts feom time we can see the presentation.
I really like them
Can you not talk for me?
Are you a Biden supporter
Though still ok.
The audience shots are good
This was way more interesting than the trash I usually watch on RUclips.
It's all about resource acquisition and management.
51:23 not sure this analogy makes sense. A predating cell doesn’t get 10% of 10%, it gets 10% from the energy substrate in the bacteria, just like the bacteria did. Probably just doesn’t make sense to specialize eating other bacteria, which would limit yourself to wherever the other bacteria are growing, and since bacteria divide that fast, they would run out of the other bacteria end of story.
I’m not going to get far eating celery. Just give me some sugar and watch me go.
muito obrigado pela postagem !! reassistindo...
So, at the end of Part 1, If the Oxygen level in the atmosphere was 0.2%, then assuming no change in Nitrogen, then Carbon Dioxide must have been about 20%, and now they are switched with Oxygen at 20% and Carbon Dioxide at 0.2% or thereabouts...
How we Reflect our Mitochondria Functions at the Molecular Level, You know ,your gut. The Undiscovered Front Line.
soo good
Brilliant
Who is the girl in the opening photo?
Recommendation to pan the audience once with the camera at the beginning or end, if at all, but don't keep cutting away to them. It just adds cognitive load (it's distracting) and adds nothing of value for your viewers.
at 7:05 he said that NH3 and CH4 were "metabolized" to...How can this be? I thought it was PRIMORDIAL...!!
Perhaps the alchemical and metalurgy was a catalist for chain reactions that the ancients harvested energy from and at the same time bio gio genetic engineering happened that gave dominance to life forms that put themselves above others
I love a cartoon..... it all started a long long long time ago.........
Survival must be about the mitochondrial sheath? Maybe it’s hiding in the cell? Maybe it’s speaking in some way?
It would be better to have longer shots of the charts instead of audience head shots. We really don't need to see those.
if mitochondria came from bacteria then why it is not infectious,what if it goes out of control and start replicating.
Virat, the mitochondria gave up almost all of their genes, retaining only those related to their function producing ATP (37). Mitocondria do not any of the genes that bacteria have for movement, production of enzymes, etc.
If you think of bacteria like a car (four wheels, engine, transmission, chassis, fuel tank, steering, throttle and brakes), the mitochondria are like having only the engine out of the car being used as a generator. Your question is asking "why can't I take that mitochondria and drive it around?"
Bitch, a eukaryotic cell is a membrane around a culture of bacteria. Like a wall around a kingdom. We are a society of bacteria and we ARE infectious from the earth's point of view. Look at a satellite map of a city. It's responsible bacteria that provide the evolutionary genome.
Because if it was, and in many cases it probably was, its host died. We're descended from a cell where this didn't happen, and instead the mitochondrion genome began to discard genes that didn't benefit the symbiotic relationship.
I love these videos, but it bothers me that you zoom in on single people in the audience.
Totally agree and stopped watching and started to read the comments instead.
Evidence? From 14 billion years ago?
We need Terahertz wave.
So, after all that, we still don't know.
Light sculpts life
3:27 What about INFORMATION?
what is your point?
@@mcmanustony the DNA might be a pattern or set of amino acids. And the RNA might be able to transcribe that into the cell parts, but what information got there? Like how to absorb and process energy. Or to reproduce. Or information on making cell parts. Any and all information that provides the instructions on the processes of life. Way too much has to come together at one time . People should be smart enough to catch in that there is a definite design.
@@deborahdean8867 DNA is not made from amino acids.
What do you get out of posting hopelessly stupid comments on subjects you’re too lazy to learn anything about?
@@mcmanustony so what you're saying is that you are good at specific facts, but have trouble with reading comprehension or concepts? Try making a relevant comment that shows you're smart
@@deborahdean8867 I’ve no need to prove anything to you. The point is you haven’t the faintest fucking clue what you’re blabbering about.
If this had cartoons showing what they were talking about we would all be smart and this video would have ten million views
so, all we are just bacterias-
that is sound great !
Thank you. Very interesting.
Mitochondria are not a separate organism, they are produced by the formation of a cell and do not undergo mitosis!
No number 5, but great talk
I don't know how I really got here either
36:46 nice!
Thank you , This reminds me of all the late night studying. And hours of classes . That over many years need a upgrade. My study of meteorites has shown me that your exactly correct as to how , perfectly the seeding of life in space is automatically performed. That is we are silly to think we have to take plants and have planetary development . When the best conditions are available. The faster meteorites that form the planets . Are all set up to develop life with the planets core and the formation of a balanced heated chemical reaction , that is so exactly balanced. That it had to of been thought of before it was made to happen . As well as it’s in balance with planets with cores . That have sun systems to hold orbits to allow critical time to allow chemical and heat and pressure to release the bacteria . That is also occurring in the universe on those green zone planets . In fact life in its many forms . Must in fact be replicated as exactly or near exactly . By the laws of sciences by a very perfect creator who knows before he started what he his reaction would bring . That had to be very important to have had such a wide range of actions become perfectly balanced.
I'm hearing a lot of "evolution of the gaps" ideas in this presentation..
It's ongoing... stay tuned.
42:27 It's a Trap
You didn't even touch on the most fundamental problem with the "origin of mitochondria". The *proteins.* There are a *lot* of proteins that have to be constructed just so to make it work at all. So how could they have been coded in less than a trillion trillion trillion years? If not random chance, then what mechanism? Natural selection can't work until there's an advantage. But there would be no advantage until it was almost complete.
@@arubaga" _"your question has to do with the complexity of the most primitive form of Ribose, ..."_
No. Absolutely not! Ribose is a tiny little five-carbon sugar.
Mitochondria have a number of enormously complex molecular machines made up of tens of unique proteins each. Do you know about the four "complexes" in the electron transfer chain and ATP synthase? Those complexes have *proton pumps* that siphon off a little energy from glucose fragments and use it to force protons (hydrogen nuclei) into the area between the membranes. And ATP synthase uses the resulting energy store to forcibly attach phosphates to ADP to make ATP, the cell's universal energy carrier.
Each of the many constituent proteins is very complex and must be precise. But none of them has any value without the whole system working, and the citrus cycle in front of it working, and the inner membrane being tight enough to imprison those slippery little protons.
So how did all of that happen?
It had to have all been designed and built before any of it would work, so natural selection doesn't apply.
There is a Ribosome focused video named "Build-a-Cell seminar Loren Williams: The Origins and Evolution of the Ribosome". Summary: Ribosome grew structurally by accretion to make proteins with more complex shapes. Ancient Ribosomes are in two pieces, much smaller, but can only make limited variety of proteins.
@@arubaga: _"There is a Ribosome focused video ..."_
Oh! Your original comment (did you delete it?) referenced ribose, not the ribosome. Ribosome makes a little more sense, though my answer is still very applicable.
The problem of how the ribosome could have evolved is indeed a huge problem. But even if we assume there's a functional ribosome, you still have to answer how all those crucially important proteins in the mitochondria got coded into DNA.
The only plausible answer that's ever been proposed is that an intelligent agent designed them.
Perhaps Quantum effects accelerated the protein coding process?
@@charliekelland7564 You mean woo woo magic.
16:35 This claim IS not prove at all?
You should be in Congress
36:00 We need a lot of "faith" to belive that this is really possible!!
No you don't. Faith plays no role. Have you got anything less unoriginal?
No faith required to believe there is a designer?
@@mcmanustony it does when it's almost literally mathematically impossible for all these factors to come together at once in such a finely tuned fashion by evolution? The process of random change? That's where you get into the mathematically impossible factor. Anyone capable of designing life on earth, humans, is going to be beyond our recognition or understanding. We'd be lucky to have any perception at all. And it makes it more interesting to think about just how the tales/stories/rules as to how we SHOULD behave/live came to be since they're so perfect.
@@deborahdean8867 can you show me this “mathematics”?
You seem not to have the faintest clue what you’re talking about. What’s that like?
@@mcmanustony you don't know that a large portion of scientific fact is theoretical mathematics? Take physics, or evolution.
I didn't hear you say that *most* of the many proteins needed to construct mitochondria are coded in the *nucleus,* _not_ in the mitochondrial DNA. If it started as a separate life form, how did the genes transition to the nucleus? How plausible is that?
I don't want to sound mean but this speaker would benefit from some public speaking training. He has a maddening speaking style that alternates between halting, half sentences filled with lots of ums and ahs, followed by bursts of technical jargon, followed by more half sentences. There's often just too much detail when a simpler explanation would suffice. It often felt like the proverbial guy explaining how a watch is constructed in response to the question "what time is it?". I was able to follow along only because I'm already familiar with most of the subjects discussed here.
Wow! and here was me thinking that Americans were all science deniers and creationists ! How fabulous to (yet again) be reminded of the incredible advances of scientific knowledge as well as the comforting realisation of the link each of us has with every other living thing past and present. 56:39
So how come with all this information, the population as a whole have not been educated generally, but let religion to pollute and also run far too many institutions and get to influence the secular, to where now have the political current situation, so acidic to knowledge and progress? Progress to develop, but to deal with the real problems that are affecting badly, life on this planet. Tolerance to it?
He shows how energy is produced from sugar, and ignores that mitochondria also produce energy from fat, but even more efficiently. WTF? Unless i missed something that's a hugely misleading presentation that suggests mashmallows are necessary for life. :o
This is called a fairy tale folks.
This is for educated adults. Go away.....preferably to a library so you can commence your remedial education .
@@mcmanustony You spelled "indoctrinated adults" incorrectly.
@@KerryPetersen No I didn’t. Try to comment on something you know a tiny bit about. This isn’t it.
You are a pitiful fool.
@@KerryPetersen😅you mean 'spelt'
lets then take a more advanced look at photosynthesis so that we may understand weather life without design is likely:
How many people realise today that we cant reproduce the process of photosynthesis today, despite all our computers and labouratories? We cant reproduce it, thats how complex the biochemistry is.
Why and how would evolution go about trying to produce a protein for binding pigment molecules before pigment molecules existed?
If chlorophyll evolved before the antenna proteins that bind it, it would in all likelihood destroy the cell, so the proteins had to evolve first. But natural selection could not favour a ‘newly evolved’ protein which could bind chlorophyll and other pigment molecules before those crucial pigments had themselves come into existence! Each binding site must be engineered to bind chlorophyll a or chlorophyll b only or carotene only. The carotene molecules must be present in just the right places for quenching triplet states in the chlorophylls. Even if the pigment molecules were already around, producing just the right protein would be an extremely difficult task. It would not only have to bind pigment molecules only, but it would need to bind just the right pigments in just the right places in just the right orientation so that energy could be transferred perfectly between them, with a little lower energy at each step. Anything else would do nothing, or would transfer energy at random, and the complex would accomplish nothing at best and burn up the cell at worst.
And there is another problem for evolution. The insertion of the pigment molecules changes the conformation of the apoprotein from about 20% to about 60% α-helical content.45 So evolution would have to produce a protein with a wrong shape that would assume just the right shape by the insertion of pigment molecules in just the right positions and orientations when those pigment molecules had not yet evolved.
The energy transfer timeframe between pigment molecules in the antenna complex is between 10-15 and 10-9 seconds. The system that God engineered captures 95-99% of the photon energy for photochemistry, even though there are four other ways the energy can be lost during the slightly less than a billionth of a second the system has for capturing it.46 Humans certainly cannot begin to design systems with such efficiency, but the evolutionists are determined that chance, what Cairns-Smith47 calls ‘old fumble fingers’, can.
Our understanding of the assembly of apoproteins with their pigments is very poor, but we do know that the chloroplast encoded chlorophyll a binding proteins of PSI and PSII core complexes are inserted cotranslationally into the thylakoid. Protein intermediates of the D1 protein have been observed due to ribosome pausing. It may be that this ribosome pausing permits cotranslational binding of chlorophyll a to the protein. This kind of controlled insertion, with synthesis of otherwise phototoxic material, is precisely what we would expect from intelligent planning and forethought, but how might ‘old fumble fingers’47 hit on such a scheme?
All of the parts must be shipped to the right location, and all must be the right size and shape, down to the very tiniest detail.
ATP synthase is an irreducibly complex motor-a proton-driven motor divided into rotor and stator portions as described and illustrated earlier in this paper. Protons can flow freely through the CF0 complex without the CF1 complex, so that if it evolved first, a pH gradient could not have been established within the thylakoids. The δ and critical χ protein subunits of the CF1 complex are synthesized in the cytosol and imported into the chloroplast in everything from Chlorella to Eugenia in the plant kingdom. All of the parts must be shipped to the right location, and all must be the right size and shape, down to the very tiniest detail. Using a factory assembly line as an analogy, after all the otherwise useless and meaningless parts have been manufactured in different locations and shipped in to a central location, they are then assembled, and, if all goes as intended, they fit together perfectly to produce something useful. But the whole process has been carefully designed to function in that way. The whole complex must be manufactured and assembled in just one certain way, or nothing works at all. Since nothing works until everything works, there is no series of intermediates that natural selection could have followed gently up the back slope of mount impossible. The little proton-driven motor known as ATP synthase consists of eight different subunits, totalling more than 20 polypeptide* chains, and is an order of magnitude smaller than the bacterial flagellar motor, which is equally impossible for evolutionists to explain.
Evolution cannot account for the assembly and activation of rubisco. All attempts to reconstitute a 16-unit rubisco from any source have failed, so the assembly of rubisco must be studied in the chloroplast extracts. The eight large (L) subunits of rubisco are coded by the chloroplast DNA, and the eight small (S) subunits by nuclear DNA. The S subunit of rubisco is synthesized on free cytosolic polyribosomes* and maintained even during synthesis in an unfolded state by chaperones* of the Hsp70 class and their protein partners. When the small unit is brought to the import complex of the chloroplast, the fourteen-polypeptide chloroplast Cpn60 chaperonin protein associates with IAP100 (protein) of the import complex and can also associate with mature imported small subunits. The chloroplast Cpn60 chaperone is similar to the E. coli GroEl protein. After the unfolded precursor protein enters the stromal space, it binds briefly to a stromal Hsp70 chaperone protein and the N terminal targeting sequence is cleaved.
The large subunits of the rubisco enzyme are produced by the DNA and machinery of the chloroplast itself and stored complexed to a Cpn60 chaperonin.This chaperone protein keeps the large subunit protein from folding incorrectly, and therefore becoming useless, and is also necessary for the proper binding of the eight large subunits; without it they will form a useless clump. In many plants, the large subunits are chemically modified by specialized enzymes before they bind to the chaperonin protein. There is strong evidence that chloroplast Cpn60, Cpn21 and Hsp70 also participate in the assembly of the sixteen-unit rubisco complex. After a soluble L8 core is formed with the assistance of the chaperonin proteins, tetramers (four-part complexes) of small subunits bind to the top and bottom of the complex to form the complete enzyme. There are almost certainly other chaperones and chaperone-like polypeptides or lipo-proteins involved that are not yet characterized but i cant write a textbook here.
How do evolutionists explain how natural selection would have favoured a protein complex the function of which was to prevent a still-useless rubisco small subunit from folding outside the chloroplast? Before it evolved a way to get the protein inside, there would be no benefit from keeping it unfolded outside. How could blind chance ‘know’ it needed to cause large subunit polypeptides to fold ‘correctly’ and to keep them from clumping? It could not ‘anticipate’ the ‘correct’ conformation before the protein became useful. And evolution would need to be clever indeed to chemically modify something not yet useful so that it could be folded ‘correctly’ when even the ‘correctly’ folded polypeptide would not yet become useful.
Copy and paste from some stooge Creationist book so let's cut it short= Your preferred version of invisible supernatural skywizard used his magic and you have read enough material in the field of Evolutionary biology and have run extensive molecular biology experiments PLUS you obviously know better than the scientific consensus plus you have a personal hotline to your preferred supernatural superbeeing that told you this Creationist mumbo jumbo.
😆 I highly suggest you look up methodological empiricism and the scientific method, maybe some Karl Popper and the classics from Darwin, Wallace,Huxley, Dobzhansky, Mayr, Fisher, Carroll etc...and then come back.
Thank you.
And concerning Photosynthesis and the mitochondria I highly suggest you also brush up on Endosymbiosis theory and quantum biology. Thanks. Evolutionary biology isn't just hardcore Natural selection as proposed by Darwin & Wallace. There are other mechanisms that explain both better than your " bUt NaTuRaL sElEcTIoN nOt Jesus so baaad demon science !!! " Copy and paste Pseudoscience comment.
Nick Lane has two great books that explain both - photosynthesis and the mitochondria - in great detail.
The Vital Question & Life Ascending: Ten Great Inventions of Evolution.
I assume you got this from Michael " Astrology is science " Behe...sounds just like him🙄
Evolution does not think! That’s the point. Where do you teach. I’d like to hear from you.
*Platz:* _"Since nothing works until everything works, there is no series of intermediates that natural selection could have followed gently up the back slope of mount impossible."_
Very well said! That summarizes in one sentence why microbe-to-man evolution is a fairy story.
*Platz:* _"How do evolutionists explain how natural selection would have favoured a protein complex the function of which was to prevent a still-useless rubisco small subunit from folding outside the chloroplast?"_
Very good question. But I know the answer based on what I've seen over and over.
They:
1) Ignore the facts,
2) Call you a liar for stating the facts,
3) Claim God doesn't even exist,
4) Vaguely claim natural selection has unenumerated super powers,
5) Cite *authority* in which they have total faith and
6) Call you stupid for questioning the authority in which they have total faith.
did not read
Whoops! I thought this video was about midichlorians. My bad.
The Force-house of the cell?
23:11 Ironically, it was her husband who wrote, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
Great content. Woeful presentation.
Why can't we recreate it in a test tube then, should be easy
We've had a hundred years to try. Nature had millions.
@@derrickbonsell or rather, billions.
mitochondria evolves into midichlorians, sometimes mistaken for the x-gene, giving humans superhuman powers.
midichlorians are what gives force user its powers in star wars
Yeah, but Kryptonite defeats it all.
You really should get out more often.
All in all, this lecture doesnt say anything new. I learned all this 50 years ago. Its basic cell biology.
Bunk! You didn’t learn this 50 years ago. It wasn’t around with the ability or knowledge of how it fit 50 years ago.
@@robertlunn3678 well, I learned about it back then. How could I if nobody knew? Its basic cell biology. There's really nothing new about mitochondria here, it's the powerhouse of the cell. They have always been fascinated with this conversion if energy. If you could harness this somehow. Your energy would be almost limitless. Especially to produce ATP, adenosine triphosphate . But these chemical processes were already known. The references to evolution is simply a theoretical type science like they do in mathematics speculating dimensions. I don't know why you think this wasnt known 50 years ago. I learned about mitochondria in high school, and more layer in college micro biology, physiology, anatomy. I think they run a scam on us today, acting like people today are so modern and wise and know so much more than in times past. What a joke. Dont believe it. We've made a few new tools, but have not become smarter or more advanced and civilized .
The point is: this is mostly school level stuff (or maybe at the level of popular science magazines) one learns in biology class. While it is astounding that we live only one (or maybe two) generation(s) after it was discovered, it still isn’t news for most people who had 10-12 years of school, or have been reading some magazines in the last 40 years.
Is it impossible to get these folks with this knowledge to get better at presenting? I’ve head nothing but pounding from his hand waving.
Important stuff which one has to pay attention to understand and they’re throwing in distractions.
I know , I know, it’s “ get off my lawn stuff but please
His start about water coming from meteorites is badly wrong. The Earth build from near absolute zero meteorites. There was not heat and volcanism at the beginning. The atmosphere is the result of the mass of the Earth, so it was there from the beginning. But it is true that there was not much Oxygen, nearly all Nitrogen.
There is an electrical voltage that exists at least on the surface of the earth. With the recent discoveries of the importance of bio electricity, it might be found that these that run through the ground on our planet might be an important ingrediant in the formation of life from the begining.
Here's something that makes this factual......Sorry you're tube will not let the average person learn. So sad 😞
8:49 How about Inteligent Design? ID is prety much what we see in the astonishing complexity of Mithocondria, Ribosoms, DNA, and Life in general...Most of the "leading" hypotesis are only Garbage, Lies, Errors, Why mention them as "leading" in the first place?
Ah yes.....complexity complexity complexity- therefore Jesus!
This is a science video.....ID is not science.
@@mcmanustony ID is science. It is mathematically improbable to the point of impossibility that all these finely tuned details to develop by chance because you need one process for another. How ever, it is mathematically highly probable that a designer was involved . So if it's science you want , mathematics alone can prove that an IDer is the likely source of life rather than our theory of evolution. Man really should be smart enough to get the hing that there is a designer. Intelligent enough to see the complexity involved that would REQUIRE a designer. THAT is really the litmus test for human intelligence as a species. If man doesn't have the intelligence to 'see' the complexity and recognize the patterns, he isnt very advanced. This is a very basic level of intelligence, this recognition
@@deborahdean8867 another helping of hopeless stupid slogans.
Do you know how books work?
@@mcmanustony sure, just tell me what the stupid the slogans is and I'll tell you how books work.
The “probabilities” calculated by ID proponents are ludicrous because they assume simultaneity was required rather than stepwise evolution. They also ignore the astronomical number of prokaryotes that covered the early earth, multiplied by the astronomical number of cell divisions that occurred over billions of years before the first eukaryotes emerged. Saying it all happened by someone waving a magic wand is an easy way to explain anything that one’s is ignorant of.
terriblle presentation
I thought it was good
There are FIVE information codes in every cell, aside from blood cells. The five are the DNA code, the mtDNA code, the epigenome code, the 'sugar' code that lines the surface of every cell, and the lipid code making up cell membranes. All these had to work in unison. The makeup of these for life are mathematical impossibilities-by-chance. To say the ribosome sums up evolution is ludicrous. That is defined as a 10^50 or more. It's far too complex without outside intelligence to make it happen. On top of this, the Intelligent Designer is a master chemist with 65 different hormones in the human body. We are a creation.. Not an evolution.
All classic and written-about adaptations in peer review papers are epigenome-derived. The actions of the epigenome is called epigenetics. The metamorphosis of the butterfly from a caterpillar is done by epigenetics. The Darwin Finch got its beak adaptations epigenetically...not by the theorized evolution means is by the same means...just without the metamorphosis. Found to be a fact by Dr. Michael Skinner in 2014.
Evolution is a theory. Epigenetic-derived adaptations is a materially found fact instead. Theory vs. fact? Go with the facts! All of these epigenetic-derived adaptations had an ASSUMPTION of evolving DNA mutations. This assumption is a false precept. This false precept was called wrongly 'microevolution'. Then this false building block was used to say 'macroevolution' came from these little steps. The absurd claim of genome degeneration causing evolutionary generation is comic book science.
We are from an intelligent design. The intelligent designer? Jesus Christ! Call upon his name in faith to receive the free gift of eternal life right now!
Mis-expression of the genes or the sequence of the mtDNA causes diseases. In healthy people it is finely tuned. This fits the intelligent design paradigm.
I thought you were awesome in the first Big Momma's House, but to be honest the sequels weren't as good...
*Mary:* _"..., the 'sugar' code that lines the surface of every cell, ..."_
I don't understand this. Is the outside of every lipid bi-layer sugar coated? What sugar?
*Mary:* _"... the lipid code making up cell membranes."_
My understanding is that if the right lipids are created in quantity, they will self assemble into a lipid by-layer. So are you referring to the specific lipid particle itself? Wouldn't that be coded in the enzymes that construct them? Or do you mean the correct mixture of lipids, cholesterol and transfer proteins? Wouldn't this be coded in the (poorly understood) gene regulatory network that coordinates the production of all the needed components?
The fact that life was designed is inescapable for anyone who seriously looks. But there are still many many details that I don't understand.
@@KenJackson_US Very good questions. Here is a cut and paste you can put in your web search on the 'sugar code'.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › 28709806The sugar code: Why glycans are so important - PubMed
The enzymatic machinery for the biosynthesis of sugar chains can indeed link monosaccharides, the letters of the third alphabet of life, in a manner to reach an unsurpassed number of oligomers
...and put this cut and paste in your search bar on the lipid code...it's not just 'bi-layer but amounts into THOUSANDS of configurations.
Every cell can create thousands of different lipids. However, little is known how this chemical lipid diversity contributes to the transport of messages within the cell, in other words, the lipid code of the cell is still unknown. This is mainly due to the lack of methods to quantitatively study lipid function in living cells. An understanding of how lipids work is very important because they control the function of proteins throughout the cell and are involved in bringing important substances into the cell through the cell membrane. In this process it is fascinating that only a limited number of lipid classes on the inside of the cell membrane act as messenger molecules, but they receive messages from thousands of different receptor proteins. It is still not clear, how this abundance of messages can still be easily recognized and transmitted.
you bore me
Williams George Thomas Betty Williams Mary
Can someone talk to the bald guy with the blue shirt and tell him to listen to the lecture. His questions are distracting and non-relevant. And.... he keeps coming to all these lectures.
I like the lecture and I agree with the angry birds commenting on the luck of preparation for this lecture.
Life was from the spoken word, rest assured you will expire as a mere PHD.
There are FIVE information codes in every cell, aside from blood cells. The five are the DNA code, the mtDNA code, the epigenome code, the 'sugar' code that lines the surface of every cell, and the lipid code making up cell membranes. All these had to work in unison. The makeup of these for life are mathematical impossibilities-by-chance. To say the ribosome sums up evolution is ludicrous. That is defined as a 10^50 or more. It's far too complex without outside intelligence to make it happen. On top of this, the Intelligent Designer is a master chemist with 65 different hormones in the human body. We are a creation.. Not an evolution.
All classic and written-about adaptations in peer review papers are epigenome-derived. The actions of the epigenome is called epigenetics. The metamorphosis of the butterfly from a caterpillar is done by epigenetics. The Darwin Finch got its beak adaptations epigenetically...not by the theorized evolution means is by the same means...just without the metamorphosis. Found to be a fact by Dr. Michael Skinner in 2014.
Evolution is a theory. Epigenetic-derived adaptations is a materially found fact instead. Theory vs. fact? Go with the facts! All of these epigenetic-derived adaptations had an ASSUMPTION of evolving DNA mutations. This assumption is a false precept. This false precept was called wrongly 'microevolution'. Then this false building block was used to say 'macroevolution' came from these little steps. The absurd claim of genome degeneration causing evolutionary generation is comic book science.
We are from an intelligent design. The intelligent designer? Jesus Christ! Call upon his name in faith to receive the free gift of eternal life right now!
Mis-expression of the genes or the sequence of the mtDNA causes diseases. In healthy people it is finely tuned. This fits the intelligent design paradigm.
Well put.
@@deborahdean8867 no it isn’t. Asserting there is “a designer “ is no more significant than asserting there are invisible purple unicorns
That is the most amusing gibberish I’ve read today. Thanks.
can you please repeat that? Oh, you already did copy & paste it at least 6 times. still no evidence for god
You believe in scientism, not science. 'Evolution' is actually combining the epigenome and the DNA information codes as being one.
Adaptations to changed environments, diets, or new threats are PRE-ABILITY of the epigenome code...not from DNA mutations being naturally selected into new configurations for the adaptations. The mish-mashing of the two as one, has been a big sleight of hand.
Epigenome-derived adaptations have been wrongly called 'microevolution'. This huge precept of evolution was used to prop up all the mind-constructs of macroevolution such as humans coming from hominids or whales coming from a land animal. Antibiotic resistance by bacteria are largely epigenome-derived. Coming from the pre-enabled epigenome, it takes on an intelligent design signature.
Then naturally, there are effects from mutations such as new traits, phenotypes, and speciation. Evolutionists used these as being evolution BUT are just effects from DNA or chromosomal mutations. It's not evolution.
There's your logistics. There's your science. This is how the smoke and mirrors of the theory of evolution works. We are from an intelligent design by Jesus Christ...known as The Word in Genesis.
You have 'models' based on chance arguments and framed preponderance of the evidence presentations. The mentors you selected to listen to then tell you what you should conclude.
They have convinced you of ignoring the opposition's evidence is 'intellectual'. Self-blinding yourself to opposing evidence makes your information-challenged. It's called aggressive incuriosity.
The model of intelligent design has its chance arguments amounting to mathematical impossibilities-by-chance as shown in my post. Preponderance of the evidence demonstrations of the truth are many from many different fields and ways.@@rockmusicvideoreviewer896
Give me a break make rna in the lab and ill understand how mitrochondria was made 70 yrs after miller eury and nothing first stuff made first explain how rna is made or membrane not mitrochondria is the master piece of life its perfect in design how did lipids carbohydrates and nucleotides combine what is the mechanism we dont know good point on nitrogen
Were you having your hair done the day they covered "writing in sentences".
try using a period. all you have is one long run on sentence that nobody want to read
Anyone can try anything like, for instance, trying to find out how a mouse trap would appear on the Moon's surface? How can I capitalize on a donkey's intelligence? Time is a God-given gift, capitalize it by investigating evidence whether it's according to your opinion or not. First, accept the fact that we are here without having asked. we are free-will individuals with personality and a moral sense; therefore we are accountable for it. The essence of living together lies in who am I regarding my neighbor. Ask and you will find it, knock and it will open. Why has anybody in the universe ever approached us on Earth, except for Jesus Christ, who resurrected at least three real people with friends and family to witness such an important event? Jesus while on earth among mankind, eating and drinking said that he would resurrect too and he did after three days, being under Roman guard, after he was found dead and pierced his heart by a spike.
Bag full of assumptions
Indeed. He sees a shockingly excellent design but instead of asking who designed it, he asserts it MUST have evolved, and then proceeds to totally ignore all evidence against a "natural" origin.
@@KenJackson_US If you insist there must be a designer then who designed the designer?
@@dionysusnow Yawn. Old question. It wasn't a very good question to begin with. No one designed the one that has always existed. Simple logic says something or someone MUST have always existed, otherwise nothing could ever exist. Ever.
You're also engaging an old tactic to cover for your lack. You know there's no way you can defend a magical evolutionary origin of mitochondria, so you're trying to flip the discussion to the Lord God, whom you know can't be analyzed using science. (How could the author of all physics and chemistry possibly be subject to them?)
lol. u have no proof. gtfooh
Lol.
this guy literally has no idea what he is talking about - his lecture is completely made up
nice story as per usual always glossing over the important stuff. That chirality question is a killer why all sugars are used by life always righted handed and the amino acids left-handed. as usual the answer is aliens did it
hahahaha
"...chemically, L and D forms are exactly the same."
Thalidomide laughs at this statement.
chemically they are the same but biochemically, they may be light-years apart.
@@gerardoconnor4278 Oh. Is "light-year" a found in the IUPAC nomenclature? I need to educate my ignorant self.
Thanks.
It was the biological activity of thalidomide that was different not its chemistry.
@@davidwright7193 I think you just gave me insight into the mind of the materialist.
Very interesting.
If you can't distill it, it doesn't exist.
@@YawnGod you just gave everyone a good insight into the mind of an ignoramus.
Who cares ?