The idea behind this animation is to help students think and learn about the process of Oxidative Phosphorylation. That is why the video doesn’t have any explanation. We, in the classroom (General biology, biochemistry, microbiology and others), study cellular respiration and watch the video. Unfortunately, many students will search the internet to get the “correct explanation” rather that study and think as an attempt to get an A in the assignment. So, explanations like this do not really help the educational system not only because they are not precise (many mistakes and misinterpretations can be found) but also because it encourages students to cheat in their assignments. Wouldn’t be better to ask people to study rather than tell them what they are watching?

@Bruti79
right on.
thanks for replying.

neuroscience is your answer in regards to consciousness eh?
how...unsatisfying.
the answer is no answer at all man.

let me try for you:
we dont know.
BUT we are making great strides in neuro transmitters and neuroscience and microbiology that it is possible that one day we WILL know.
but as of today?
we dont know,and what we dont know is a LOT.

see? better.

and your response concerning love!
breath-taking!
"We fall in love, or hate, or feel "meh" about something because of the stuff in our brain that makes our personalities"

how romantic!
ok..its not.im just being a huge ass.
in fact i am being a wicked smart-ass period.
thanks for putting up with me.

it irks me when people talk in regards to consciousness or love with a conviction that i know is not warranted.
but thanks for being a good sport about it.

in regards to type 1 diabetes.yeah...no diet is going to reverse that.sorry timmy.

maybe you thought i was trying to sell ya a bill of goods.i wasnt.
check that video out.
its a lecture by a doctor whose field is in disease and microbiology.
HE is the guy who proved that a plant based diet can reverse type 2 diabetes (not in all,but many)AND how a plant based diet can help prevent cancer and sometimes cure it.

he is entertaining,witty and its super informative.

if i didnt love double bacon cheeseburgers so much i would go vegan,but whenever i know i am eating too far on the crappy scale i watch that video and it pulls me back to reality,or the meat lovers pizza.
whatever..dont confuse me with details!

i know better than to try to get you guys to listen to my fluffernutter philosophies.
you guys are all about your religion..i mean science..yes.science!

it is all pretty exciting to me as well.
thanks man.stay awesome.

To the creationist who spent a lot of time writing up his beliefs. Yes, it does take a "leap of faith" to accept current scientific theory.

I appreciate that you can admit it. After investigating the issue, I decided the leap was too great if it was between that and Gods word. I'm sure that seems funny to you, but have you considered the philosophical implications? If you are already committed to naturalistic materialism, like most atheists, of course you are going to believe there *has* to be a materialist explanation, therefore the circumstantial evidence I cited is going to look a lot more persausive than it actually is. You might even admit that it is not proof of anything, but surely it is pointing in the right direction. You can see the issue a lot more objectively if you are not automatically committed to materialist explanations.

However, science never claims to be 100% correct unlike the teachings of most religious fundamentalists. Most time in science is proving current theories wrong, and adapting our scientific model to fit new theories. That is the strength of science. So if you can't accept the current theory, great! Come up with some other PROOF for our existence instead of buying into a cult that has no proof.

What you're doing here is creating a false dichotomy between science and religion. I don't have to choose one or the other. Science has nothing to say on the question on whether God exists. It may conflict with the bible on certain issues, but as I wrote above, I didn't change my mind because of what the bible said as true. I directly said I was willing to modify my understanding of biblical truth if scientific theories conflicted with it. The actual reason I changed my mind was because of a lack of evidence.

As far as whether there is evidence for Christianity, there is quite a bit. Some of the most compelling, I think, is fulfilled prophecy. However, God gives revelation to those who are seeking Him. Only God can reveal Himself to you.

They have assumptions based on a 2000 year old fairy tale, and the feeling "in their heart" that is it true. For me I need more repeatable/accurate proof than that to accept a theory.

I don't expect you to believe in God without any proof beyond personal testimony. As I said, God reveals Himself to those who diligently seek Him.

Sure, in all of recorded history, we look at C12 decay rates and they have been accurate, but instead of coming up with repeatable proof on why C12 isn't accurate, let's just instead assume that they are completely wrong. Looking at just the proof human fossils, the theory of evolution writes a more clear picture to me of the origin of our species than the origin of our species as described in a book. Supposedly, this book is somehow considered divine knowledge by some. Even though, it was written long before we had any understanding of virii, bacteria, or the microbiological world. Doesn't sound very divine or all knowing to me. It was the best explanation that a primitive people had to explain and live in the world around them. Which modern science and culture should be long past.

It's interesting then that the Israelites completely ignored the science of their time and were inspired to invent hand washing and quarantine procedures which, when followed, kept people from getting sick. It was almost as if an all-knowing God knew about germs and gave His people understanding which helped them avoid infection. These things were "discovered" by science thousands of years later. Had people been following Gods rules of sanitation that entire time, millions of lives would have been saved. Far from primitive, they were ahead of their time by millenia.

If it is the bible we're talking about, if you live in today's government, you already accept certain elements as out-dated and irrelevant. Unless you still stone people for adultery, worshipers of other religions, or disobeying their parents. Or if you think that the animal should be stoned in a bestiality case. Or you think that someone looking at a woman menstruating will cause your eyes to bleed. I've hope you've "grown up" from those archaic beliefs. Why is species origin any different?

Have you ever read the bible? Do you understand the differences between the Old and New covenants?

What I normally tell creationists and other anti-science viewpoints, is that if you don't believe in science, don't believe in medical science either. Stay in a church praying to your creator when you get sick or need modern medicine to improve your chances of survival. I'm sure your creator will save you...

As I said, I believe in science. What I don't believe in is the theory of deep time, or evolution by universal common descent.

>> ^Ferazel

Hopefully, it far less than a couple centuries before the view of creationists are a significant minority viewpoint in our culture as it is holding back our future as Mr. Nye said.

To the creationist who spent a lot of time writing up his beliefs. Yes, it does take a "leap of faith" to accept current scientific theory. However, science never claims to be 100% correct unlike the teachings of most religious fundamentalists. Most time in science is proving current theories wrong, and adapting our scientific model to fit new theories. That is the strength of science. So if you can't accept the current theory, great! Come up with some other PROOF for our existence instead of buying into a cult that has no proof. They have assumptions based on a 2000 year old fairy tale, and the feeling "in their heart" that is it true. For me I need more repeatable/accurate proof than that to accept a theory. Sure, in all of recorded history, we look at C12 decay rates and they have been accurate, but instead of coming up with repeatable proof on why C12 isn't accurate, let's just instead assume that they are completely wrong. Looking at just the proof human fossils, the theory of evolution writes a more clear picture to me of the origin of our species than the origin of our species as described in a book. Supposedly, this book is somehow considered divine knowledge by some. Even though, it was written long before we had any understanding of virii, bacteria, or the microbiological world. Doesn't sound very divine or all knowing to me. It was the best explanation that a primitive people had to explain and live in the world around them. Which modern science and culture should be long past.

If it is the bible we're talking about, if you live in today's government, you already accept certain elements as out-dated and irrelevant. Unless you still stone people for adultery, worshipers of other religions, or disobeying their parents. Or if you think that the animal should be stoned in a bestiality case. Or you think that someone looking at a woman menstruating will cause your eyes to bleed. I've hope you've "grown up" from those archaic beliefs. Why is species origin any different?

What I normally tell creationists and other anti-science viewpoints, is that if you don't believe in science, don't believe in medical science either. Stay in a church praying to your creator when you get sick or need modern medicine to improve your chances of survival. I'm sure your creator will save you...

Tags for this video have been changed from 'medicine, antiseptics, Ignac Semmelweis, sterile, surgery, microbiology, BBC' to 'medicine, antiseptics, Ignac Semmelweis, sterile, surgery, germs, microbiology, BBC' - edited by calvados

Tags for this video have been changed from 'hiv, virus' to 'HIV, virology, microbiology, Human immunodeficiency, virus, Retroviridae' - edited by mauz15

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Parasite, Crohns Disease, Whipworm, Jim McKerrow, Asthma' to 'Parasite, Crohns Disease, Whipworm, Jim McKerrow, Asthma, microbiology, parasitology' - edited by mauz15

Good talk. I wish I could handle 2 degrees because Microbiology/molecular biology is fascinating. The future of that field is something I would love to participate in.

In reply to this comment by EDD:
See deathcow's http://www.videosift.com/video/TED-Talks-Bonnie-Bassler-How-bacteria-communicates

Microbiology is a fascinating subject.

Youtube version

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVfmUfr8VPA

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Ted, virus, Nathan Wolfe, animals' to 'Ted, virus, Nathan Wolfe, animals, virology, microbiology, epidimiology' - edited by mauz15

>> ^Mortimer:
If you're going to be throwing away a bunch of pus covered lancets, shouldn't you have one of those red plastic biohazard sharps containers?


That's why you do it in the microbiology lab, duh.

>> ^thepinky:
Didn't see it.
The thing that I find amazing is that atheists take it for granted that no one could possibly give a compelling argument that atheism is irrational. Can you tell me what happened 3 millionths of a second before the big bang?

What does being an atheist have to do with the big bang?


So...has the universe always existed and will it always exist?

Well, yes and no. The universe as we know it has not always existed, but the matter has, in some form or another, and will always exist, even after the universe as we know it ceases to exist.


Alright, then. Did it come from nothing? NO WAY! That's an uncaused event and irrational. Well, then, what is the only solution left to us? An unmoved mover is the only other possible solution. In other words, a supernatural cause. In other words, we're all searching for answers to questions that we cannot possibly answer with our infantile understandings of the cosmos.

I don't know where the matter came from, but there are scientists working on figuring that out.

Are you saying we just give up and accept that it's some supernatural force at work? There was a time when people thought that diseases were caused by supernatural forces, but thankfully there were people who didn't accept that as fact and looked for the real reasons that caused them. That led to germ theory, which led to antibiotics, then microbiology and many more medical advances.

Imagine all of the things that we wouldn't have today if people just said, well we can't possibly understand this, therefore it must be supernatural and leave it at that.

Sterile procedure and anesthesia are the two things that make medicine modern, in my opinion. Anatomy and pharmaceuticals go waaay back. I'd have to add microbiology as a third, but that goes pretty far back too, to Leeuwenhoek, say.

Check me out, I'm on the internet talking about things I have no practical knowledge of!

upvote for the brilliant microbiology... oh, and I almost forgot...saving the world

Okay you're right, it's way deep and this video is very alarmist.
Yes I am, yes it is, and yes it is.

Rembar could you tell us if it's true that they concluded it was all the Ames type, and if in fact this is "almost" entirely controlled by the pentagon?
It was the Ames strain (not type), although that's poor reporting on this video's part by implying that it is one of many. Although this is true, basically any lab worth its salt doing research on anthrax pathology uses the Ames strain, so that tells people precious little. And no, it is not almost entirely controlled by the Pentagon. It is under national regulation, and not anybody can get their hands on it, but it's a BSL-3 agent, not BSL-4. And that doesn't even cover the samples not held in the US.

People forget that anthrax is a bacteria. Unlike nuclear and chemical weapons, new samples of pathogenic bacteria can be grown from a small sample, and how exactly do you keep inventory of that?

The new work also shows that substantial genetic differences can emerge in two samples of an anthrax culture separated for only three years. This means the attacker's anthrax was not separated from its ancestors at USAMRIID for many generations.'(9 May 2002, New Scientist)
So it wasn't "on the street" for long.
That's what it seems like at first glance, but that conclusion is faulty. Three years of cultivation is a long, long time, especially if you're only collecting material to use in an attack, rather than trying to improve the strain's lethality or resistance to antibiotics or anything in that vein. In certain forms and methods, anthrax can be properly stored in stasis for decades, without necessity of reproduction. Thus, you could keep a sample viable for close to a century, but genetically your strain will be the same generation. In effect, this knowledge instead points to somebody doing a grow-and-throw - in simplified terms, acquiring the anthrax sample, storing it for however long, then growing some, collecting spores, and sending them, then rinsing and repeating as necessary. This means it was not specifically weaponized, contrary to what the newspapers love to tell you, nor would the actual process require very high-level knowledge of microbiology or anthrax in order to perform.

And lol, Constitutional_Patriot, cry more. I'll gladly put a silly video about breast-watching (which is both entertaining and healthy, as the video demonstrates) into my channel over something that's factually inaccurate, something you don't seem to understand as you've demonstrated a number of times that you wouldn't know real science if it bit you in the ass. Don't try to take it out on me with your little passive-aggressive downvoting. Sack up.