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?

Clear his head.... I have read that those who do dangerous things have different biochemistry than us mere mortals.

I'm thinking he has different biochemistry.

I thought the same thing every time she said inflammation but my favourite (eff off spellcheck) line comes at 6:45 ... "Glyphosate ... is perforating the holes in the gut".

My daughter is a grad student in biochemistry and says she only made it to the 2 minute mark before her head exploded.

Buttle is absolutely right; we don't know. Nutritional research continues as we learn more about about the incredibly complex biochemistry in our bodies. However, the narrator conveys this same idea a relatively roundabout way. We don't know what particular diet works best (he names vegan, paleo, and mediterranean diets specifically), but he claims that all of them will work well. We perhaps don't specifically know *why* they work, but there is compelling population level data to show that they do. We will eventually be able to unearth why they work, and then likely improve upon the diets further.

TONS of things cure cancer. All day, every day. Doctors have no clue what cancer is. All they can do is cut, burn, or poison and cross their fingers.

I didn't say Cannabis was THE cure. It is A cure used by thousands with amazing efficacy. Everyone is different.

Here's 60+ studies for your perusal if you insist on the superiority of western scientific research:

"Cannabis, and the cannabinoid compounds found within it, has been shown through a large cannabisplantamount of scientific, peer-reviewed research to be effective at treating a wide variety of cancers, ranging from brain cancer to colon cancer. Below is a list of over 60 studies that demonstrate the vast anti-cancer properties of cannabis.
Studies showing cannabis may combat brain cancer:
Cannabidiol (CBD) inhibits the proliferation and invasion in U87-MG and T98G glioma cells. Study published in the Public Library of Science journal in October 2013.
Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) can kill cancer cells by causing them to self-digest. Study published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation in September 2013.
CBD is a novel therapeutic target against glioblastoma. Study published in Cancer Research in March 2013.
Local delivery of cannabinoid-filled microparticles inhibits tumor growth in a model of glioblastoma multiforme. Study published in Public Library of Science in January 2013.
Cannabinoid action inhibits the growth of malignant human glioma U87MG cells. Study published in Oncology Reports in July 2012.
Cannabidiol enhances the inhibitory effects of THC on human glioblastoma cell proliferation and survival. Study published in the Molecular Cancer Therapeutics journal in January 2010.
Cannabinoid action induces autophagy-mediated cell death in human glioma cells. Study published in The Journal of Clinical Investigation in May 2009.
Cannabinoids inhibit glioma cell invasion by down-regulating matrix metalloproteinase-2 expression. Study published in Cancer Research in March 2008.
Cannabinoids and gliomas. Study published in Molecular Neurobiology in June 2007.
Cannabinoids inhibit gliomagenesis. Study published in the Journal of Biological Chemistry in March 2007.
A pilot clinical study of THC in patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. The results were published in the British Journal of Cancer in June 2006.
Cannabidiol inhibits human glioma cell migration through an independent cannabinoid receptor mechanism. Study published in the British Journal of Pharmacology in April 2005.
Cannabinoids inhibit the vascular endothelial growth factor pathway (VEGF) in gliomas. Study published in the Journal of Cancer Research in August 2004.
Antitumor effects of cannabidiol, a nonpsychoactive cannabinoid, on human glioma cell lines. Study published in the Journal of Pharmacology in November 2003.
Inhibition of glioma growth in vivo by selective activation of the CB2 cannabinoid receptor. Study published in the Journal of Cancer Research in August 2001.
Studies showing cannabis may combat colorectal cancer:
Cannabigerol (CBG) can inhibit colon cancer cells. Study published in the Oxford journal Carcinogenesis in October 2014.
Inhibition of colon carcinogenesis by a standardised Cannabis Sativa extract with high content of CBD. Study published in Phytomedecine in December 2013.
Chemopreventive effect of the non-psychotropic phytocannabinoid CBD on colon cancer. Study published in the Journal of Molecular Medecine in August 2012.
Cannabinoids against intestinal inflammation and cancer. Study published in Pharmacology Research in August 2009.
Action of cannabinoid receptors on colorectal tumor growth. Study published by the Cancer Center of the University of Texas in July 2008.
Studies showing cannabis may combat blood cancer:
The effects of cannabidiol and its synergism with bortezomib in multiple myeloma cell lines. Study published in the International Journal of Cancer in December 2013.
Enhancing the activity of CBD and other cannabinoids against leukaemia. Study published in Anticancer Research in October 2013.
Cannabis extract treatment for terminal acute lymphoblastic leukemia of Philadelphia chromosome (Ph1). Study published in Case Reports in Oncology in September 2013.
Expression of type 1 and type 2 cannabinoid receptors in lymphoma. Study published in the International Journal of Cancer in June 2008.
Cannabinoid action in mantle cell lymphoma. Study published in Molecular Pharmacology in November 2006.
THC-induced apoptosis in Jurkat leukemia. Study published in Molecular Cancer Research in August 2006.
Targeting CB2 cannabinoid receptors as a novel therapy to treat malignant lymphoblastic disease. Study published in Blood American Society of Hemmatology in July 2002.
Studies showing cannabis can combat lung cancer:
Cannabinoids increase lung cancer cell lysis by lymphokine-activated killer cells via upregulation of Icam-1. Study published in Biochemical Pharmacology in July 2014.
Cannabinoids inhibit angiogenic capacities of endothelial cells via release of tissue inhibitor of matrix metalloproteinases-1 from lung cancer cells. Study published in Biochemical Pharmacology in June 2014.
COX-2 and PPAR-γ confer CBD-induced apoptosis of human lung cancer cells. Study published in Molecular Cancer Therapeutics in January 2013.
CBD inhibits lung cancer cell invasion and metastasis via intercellular adhesion molecule-1. Study published in the Journal of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology in April 2012.
Cannabinoid receptors, CB1 and CB2, as novel targets for inhibition of non–small cell lung cancer growth and metastasis. Study published in Cancer Prevention Research in January 2011.
THC inhibits epithelial growth factor-induced (EGF) lung cancer cell migration in vitro as well as its growth and metastasis in vivo. Study published in the journal Oncogene in July 2007.
Studies showing cannabis may combat stomach cancer:
Cannabinoid receptor agonist as an alternative drug in 5-Fluorouracil-resistant gastric cancer cells. Study published in Anticancer Research in June 2013.
Antiproliferative mechanism of a cannabinoid agonist by cell cycle arrest in human gastric cancer cells. Study published in the Journal of Cellular Biochemistry in March 2011.
Studies showing cannabis may combat prostrate cancer:
Cannabinoids can treat prostate cancer. Study published by the National Institute of Health in October 2013.
Non-THC cannabinoids inhibit prostate carcinoma growth in vitro and in vivo: pro-apoptotic effects and underlying mechanisms. Study published in the British Journal of Pharmacology in December 2012.
The role of cannabinoids in prostate cancer: Basic science perspective and potential clinical applications. Study published in the Indian Journal of Urology in January 2012.
Induction of apoptosis by cannabinoids in prostate and colon cancer cells is phosphatase dependent. Study published in Anticancer Research in November 2011.
Studies showing cannabis may combat liver cancer:
Involvement of PPARγ in the antitumoral action of cannabinoids on hepatocellular carcinoma (CHC). Study published in Cell Death and Disease in May 2013.
Evaluation of anti-invasion effect of cannabinoids on human hepatocarcinoma cells. Study published on the site Informa Healthcare in February 2013.
Antitumoral action of cannabinoids on hepatocellular carcinoma. Study published in Cell Death and Differentiation in April 2011.
Studies showing cannabis may combat pancreatic cancer:
Cannabinoids inhibit energetic metabolism and induce autophagy in pancreatic cancer cells. Study published in Cell Death and Disease in June 2013.
Cannabinoids Induce apoptosis of pancreatic tumor cells. Study published in Cancer Research in July 2006.
Studies showing cannabis may combat skin cancer:
Cannabinoid receptor activiation can combat skin cancer. Study published by the National Institute of Health in October 2013.
Cannabinoids were found to reduce skin cancer by 90% in just 2 weeks. Study published in the Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology in July 2013.
Cannabinoid receptors as novel targets for the treatment of melanoma. Study published in the Journal of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology in December 2006.
Inhibition of skin tumor growth and angiogenesis in vivo by activation of cannabinoid receptors. Study published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation, in January 2003.
Studies showing cannabis may combat other types of cancer:
Bladder: Marijuana reduces the risk of bladder cancer. Study published in the Medscape site in May 2013.
Kaposi sarcoma: Cannabidiol inhibits growth and induces programmed cell death in Kaposi sarcoma–associated herpesvirus-infected endothelium. Study published in the journal Genes & Cancer in July 2012.
Nose, mouth, throat, ear: Cannabinoids like THC inhibit cellular respiration of human oral cancer cells. Study by the Department of Pediatrics at the State University of New York, published in June 2010.
Bile duct: The dual effects of THC on cholangiocarcinoma cells: anti-invasion activity at low concentration and apoptosis induction at high concentration. Study published in Cancer Investigation in May 2010.
Ovaries: Cannabinoid receptors as a target for therapy of ovarian cancer. Study published on the American Association for Cancer Research website in 2006.
Preparation and characterisation of biodegradable microparticles filled with THC and their antitumor efficacy on cancer cell lines. Study published in the Journal of Drug Targeting in September 2013.
CBD Cannabidiol as a potential anticancer drug. Study published in the British Journal of Pharmacology in February 2013.
Cannabinoids as anticancer modulators. Study published in the Progress in Lipid Research journal in January 2013.
CBD inhibits angiogenesis by multiple mechanisms. Study published in the British Journal of Pharmacology in November 2012.
Towards the use of cannabinoids as antitumour agents. Study published in Nature in June 2012.
Cannabinoid-associated cell death mechanisms in tumor models. Study published in the International Journal of Oncology in May 2012.
Cannabinoids, endocannabinoids and cancer. Study published in Cancer Metastasis Reviews in December 2011.
The endocannabinoid system and cancer: therapeutic implication. Study published in the British Journal of Pharmacology in July 2011.
This list was compiled in part by Alchimiaweb.com.
– TheJointBlog"

@JiggaJonson

You may not have said that people lack self-control, but the article you posted indicated as much; that when it comes to food portions, people have difficulty curbing their appetites, and it's simply not true -- and it's seems like a facile excuse for not taking responsibility for oneself.

No one I know who actually wants to lose weight "eats less and exercises" (and I would add "eat healthfully" to that, as well). In fact, I don't know anyone who eats healthfully and exercises regularly and appropriately who is "overweight." (If you know anyone, feel free to put them in touch with me.)

I don't want to get all technical here, but obviously someone who has moldy intestines, "leaky gut," fatty liver, and the resulting blood sugar imbalances may have a difficult time losing weight. And, by no means do I think eating McDonald's is a good idea for any health-conscious person, but individuals need to take some responsibility for educating themselves about their own health. This isn't McDonalds' responsibility.

And yeah, the low fat craze was a bad idea (as I frequently pointed out to many in the 90's), but that's what you get when you trust certain "authorities" to tell you what to do and how to live (especially when it comes from the government and its cronies at the AMA).

If you eat healthfully, your body will tell you when to eat and when to stop. Only a messed up metabolism encourages overeating. For example, the insulin-adrenailne roller-coaster will, of course, have an effect on a person's capacities for immediate self-control. This is why people who binge tend to do so on sweets, wheat, and other no-so-great "foods." Do you know anyone who binges on broccoli? I do not.

So I agree that you need knowledge of what to eat, and this is something that often varies from person to person as we all have different biochemistries, but there are common elements to what more likely agrees with most everyone's health.

(Disclaimer: I am not giving medical advice here, as I have not been licensed by the medical "authorities" to misinform you, but in case you want to know more about the reasons for obesity, I encourage you to check this out for more information: http://www.majidali.com/the1.htm)

Neuroscience and biochemistry yes. =)

You may not like it, or find it romantic, but it's something we can see and observe.

What evidence do you have to present?

As for science as a religion? Nah, it doesn't work like that. Science is a series of conclusions based on observations (very watered down term.) If things happen that change our observations, we change our conclusions. When is the last time something religious or spiritual changed how they think. It happens a lot in science. In a counter point, it took the vatican about 400 years to apologize to Galileo. =)

I'm not saying it can't happen. I'm saying there is no evidence to support what you're saying. Because there are processes in the brain that we can see and observe and form opinion off of.

If you have a way or process that can show some fact/proof/observations off of spirituality, I'd love to see them. It's the same thing with ghost hunters, in the history of the world and people, the answer to anything has never been ghosts. =)

I'm pretty sure dosages measured in milligrams will suffice. Pounds seem a bit excessive. Also, it's easier to be taken seriously if you seem slightly less enthusiastic about drugs. They're fun and all, but once you start talking about "real realities" it's tough not to laugh you off. If there are indeed "real realities" that we are unaware of, the necessary research is probably in physics, not neuroscience or biochemistry or whatever.

We already have some ideas about what happens in your brain during ego-loss that seem to be much less of a stretch than "real realities."

Yeah...the day we get a virus, bacteria, or straight up parasitic organism that can tell our brains to do certain things--I'm quiting the human species (I might be overstating it, but I certainly will become very paranoid concerning certain conditions, if you understand me), assuming it looks like this is going to be able to be spread via a fairly hardy species of: younameit. Zombies are one thing, but seriously I REALLY, REALLY, do not want these type of attacks to EVER reach us. Could you even imagine?

On the other side of things, I wonder if that is considered as the best dump evAr.(?) Second, it seems like it just a GREAT species as it seemingly has atleast two worms from the onset of infection (although it looked to me as though there was atleast one more still to come). I mean can the Praying Mantis even survive this event? Is it now the Prayed Upon Mantis instead?

All of the fungi, insects, and other species that use mind or nuerochemicals on their prey and then FORCE their prey to do any sort of commands to do miscellaneous things (like this one, get to water the natural home for that creature). It's literally amazing and terrifying at the same time. My scientific side is extremely engrossed by this and I'm literally in wonder at the amazing biochemistry at play--needed to do this hijack of the mind and to literally reboot it with a new program that told a FOREIGN BODY, something with literally no connection to the predator, it took control and got that body to go to a body of water so that the "litter" could hatch in their primal environment--a TRUE wonder of evolution, even though it is used in such a terrible way, it may have huge things in store for us research wise.

I'm waiting for the day that one of these little bastards makes a little leap and crosses-over and affects humans. Could you even begin to imagine the panic? I imagine that whatever it is would be much like smallpox and shortly after a few infections it would be eliminated from the face of the planet.

Classic biochemistry movie; I don't think I've had a biochem related class that I haven't seen this in. Pure awesome.

I have claimed that there are methods to synthesize information that do not require the interaction of a mind. I have provided an example of one such system.

You object, but without either asserting that the simulation is a mind, or that it does not synthesize information, but instead you make some vague assertion about how it's instead not an example.

A mind created and designed it, therefore a mind is involved, therefore it is an invalid example..

Abiogenesis is, like all real knowledge, unproven. None the less it is, at present, the only coherent explanation for what can be demonstrated to exist.

Abiogenesis is unproven because there is no evidence, it is just metaphysics. It's your faith that it is true. It is not the only coherent explanation, it is just the explanation that you have to believe because you have ruled out an intelligent designer apriori.

There is no ID hypothesis, Behe came the closest to actually trying, and any competent high school biology student could pick his little charade to pieces in a few hours with a half decent encyclopedia.

Here is the hypothesis

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1156

Here is a story about ID being published in a biology journal making predictions for cancer research

http://www.discovery.org/a/2627

I am arguing not that there are no differences in the world, but that there is no concrete distinction between life and chemistry. You can assume there is, you can assert there is, but until you can demonstrate that there is I have nothing to disprove.

There is obviously a concrete difference since life doesn't come from non-life, and has never once been observed doing so. You have everything in the world to prove here. Everything in the Universe is made up of atoms, does that mean there is no difference between you and me? Is there no difference between a duck and a neutron star? You can't just say that because there are trivial similarities that they are the same thing.

And if you think like that, and you just believe we are all chemicals in motion, then you can't trust your own mind because if our mental processes are just chemical reactions, then there is no reason to believe anything is true. If our mental states have their origin in non-rational causes, rationality can't be trusted. You can't know if the rationality we have from evolutionary processes is discerning the truth of the world or not. Even Darwin realized this:

"With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"

The bottom right hydroxyl group is the only difference between RNA and DNA, to suggest that molecules can't lose parts, is to argue that the universe is not as it observably is.

Since the step you clearly label (MAGIC) in the RNA-> DNA path is so obviously trivial, why should anybody believe that the other step you label (MAGIC) is any more complex
?
Well this is plainly false. RNA to DNA is far more probable than ROCKS to RNA. The reason it is labeled magic is because there is no proof. It doesn't mean that they are both equally likely. It is less likely by large orders of magnitude.

The magic is RNA self-replication:

http://www.lifesorigin.com/chap10/RNA-self-replication-3.php

And if you had bothered to do any real research, you would see that the leap from soup to these complex molecules is anything but trivial..here is a list of just of basic issues...

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/chemlife.html

Some quotes for you:

Instead of revealing a multitude of transitional forms through which the evolution of the cell might have occurred, molecular biology has served only to emphasize the enormity of the gap. We now know not only of the existence of a break between the living and non-living world, but also that it represents the most dramatic and fundamental of all the discontinuities of nature. Between a living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such as a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as it is possible to conceive....

Molecular biology has also shown that the basic design of the cell system is essentially the same in all living systems on earth from bacteria to mammals. In all organisms the roles of DNA, mRNA and protein are identical. The meaning of the genetic code is also virtually identical in all cells. The size, structure and component design of the protein synthetic machinery is practically the same in all cells.

In terms of the basic biochemical design, therefore no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth. For those who hoped that molecular biology might bridge the gulf between chemistry and biochemistry, the revelation was profoundly disappointing."

Dr. Denton, Ph.D (Molecular Biology),
An evolutionist currently doing biological research in Sydney, Australia

Now we know that the cell itself is far more complex than we had imagined. It includes thousands of functioning enzymes, each one of them a complex machine in itself. Furthermore, each enzyme comes into being in response to a gene, a strand of DNA. The information content of the gene (it's complexity) must be as great as that of the enzyme it controls.

A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The DNA gene controlling this would have about 1,000 nucleotides in its chain, one consisting of a 1,000 links could exist in 41000 different forms. Using a little algebra (logarithms) we can see that 41000 = 10600. Ten multiplied by itself 600 times gives us the figure '1' followed by 600 zeros! This number is completely beyond our comprehension."

Frank Salisbury,
Evolutionary biologist

Perhaps an "effort", but not a method, or a hypothesis. ID makes no predictions, it simply tries to find arguments to prop up a baseless assumption, that is the opposite of science.

If any ID proponent, or any theologian for that matter, can demonstrate even one example of anything true that their ideology can reliably tell us that we don't already know I will admit that it has predictive power, and that it could qualify as a hypothesis, and then eventually a theory. I'm betting you can't find one.

I did, see above. Here is a bunch more: http://www.discovery.org/a/2640


>> ^dgandhi:
>> ^shinyblurry:
What I insist is that you substantiate your claims, which you have failed to do.
I have claimed that there are methods to synthesize information that do not require the interaction of a mind. I have provided an example of one such system.
You object, but without either asserting that the simulation is a mind, or that it does not synthesize information, but instead you make some vague assertion about how it's instead not an example.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Abiogenesis is purely metaphysics and unproven.
Abiogenesis is, like all real knowledge, unproven. None the less it is, at present, the only coherent explanation for what can be demonstrated to exist.
There is no ID hypothesis, Behe came the closest to actually trying, and any competent high school biology student could pick his little charade to pieces in a few hours with a half decent encyclopedia.
Given two possibilities, one being unlikely, and the other being false, I'll go with unlikely.
>> ^shinyblurry:
So you acknowledge that information is trivially synthesized, by
non-minds? That's the opposite of your original claim. Is that a
retraction?
No, see above.

You said, and I quote: "if you already have DNA, you can certainly expect a cell to form."
Do you mean that DNA must already have the information required to do so? because lots of DNA does not, otherwise are you asserting that DNA is somehow "mind", which you claim would be required for that information to come into being?
>> ^shinyblurry:
The distinction between "life" and "non-life" does not exist.
So there is no difference between you and a rock? I can admit I see similarities, heart wise..:)
Let's see some evidence for your claim that there is no difference between life and non-life.

I am arguing not that there are no differences in the world, but that there is no concrete distinction between life and chemistry. You can assume there is, you can assert there is, but until you can demonstrate that there is I have nothing to disprove.
You can't disprove unicorns, I can't disprove the life boundary, and we have no reason to believe either exists.
>> ^shinyblurry:
It's not false. This is your pathway to DNA: RNA - (MAGIC) - DNA This is your pathway to RNA: ROCKS - (MAGIC) - RNA Just because you can get RNA to self-replicate doesn't automatically mean it is either likely or plausible this could happen.
Please consider this image: http://en.citizendium.org/images/thumb/f/f6/RNA_base_vs_DNA_base.jpg/350px-RNA_base_vs_DNA_base.jpg
The bottom right hydroxyl group is the only difference between RNA and DNA, to suggest that molecules can't lose parts, is to argue that the universe is not as it observably is.
Since the step you clearly label (MAGIC) in the RNA-> DNA path is so obviously trivial, why should anybody believe that the other step you label (MAGIC) is any more complex?
>> ^shinyblurry:
It is an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent" design in nature, which biologists acknowledge, is actual design. It is only useless to you because you have ruled out design apriori, which is just simply ignorant.
Perhaps an "effort", but not a method, or a hypothesis. ID makes no predictions, it simply tries to find arguments to prop up a baseless assumption, that is the opposite of science.
If any ID proponent, or any theologian for that matter, can demonstrate even one example of anything true that their ideology can reliably tell us that we don't already know I will admit that it has predictive power, and that it could qualify as a hypothesis, and then eventually a theory. I'm betting you can't find one.

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:

The same could be said, as Harris puts it, the best advice to a country with high infant and mother mortality, is not to burn down schools designed to teach small girls to read.

This is clearly not "just" a real world descision anymore than our basic concepts of health at an individual level


If the goal is to engineer happiness for people, then you may spend time and effort on R&D in pharmaceuticals, biochemistry, neurology (Harris' background), etc. If the goal is to achieve happiness by changing the world around us, then you may spend time finding ways to improve education in poorer countries.

There's a stark difference in which one of these you invest in; whether you find one is more achievable than the other or not.

Granted, a "perfect happiness pill" may not ever be achievable; but we already know there is some degree of success with existing medication for a range of disorders such as anxiety and depression.

In health we look at the effects of medication (anti depressant helps this; anti-biotic helps that); but we also look at the effects of behaviour (eating too much does this, not exercising enough does that). The practice of one does not exclude the other; and I can concede that you could apply the same to morality.

I'm just not confident that there is as good of a correlation between moral decisions and happiness as there is between practice and health. Therefore you can't use happiness to measure the success of moral decisions in the same way that you can use health to measure the success of medical practices.

Actually, QS didn't call Behe pseudo-scientific... he called ID pseudo-scientific and I don't see how ID's validity can be seriously debated.

>> ^bmacs27:

His critique of the blind watchmaker centered on the biochemistry of the eye, and it would be better if the video did as well. Instead, by writing him off as a "pseudoscientific" fraud, or similar ad hominem attacks, they are guilty of equivalent logical fallacies, and should be given equivalent respect.

Okay, up front: I'm a vision scientist. I've also read Behe's arguments re: the irreducible complexity of vision. It's odd the way the introduction to this video characterizes his argument. Everything it says regarding the evolution of vision is correct. It is so accepted in fact that Behe even lays it out in his paper. He openly admits how easy it is to get from the eyespots on a mollusk to the human eye. He lays out all the steps, and explains how advantages are conferred at each stage, and thus how it is conceivable that such a thing could have evolved.

Behe, as a biochemist, was most concerned with how it is one gets to the simple eyespot in the first place. The biochemical machinery required for phototransduction is extraordinarily complicated. Many of the substances involved are in fact toxic to cells, and special mechanisms are needed to safely quarantine them. The process relies on extremely complicated proteins, for instance opsin barrels precisely tuned in order to create the appropriate energy barriers to 11-cis retinal isomerization. There are a multitude of other chemicals involved, which I won't go into, but frankly most are required for phototransduction as we know it.

Now, I agree, Behe is guilty of other logical problems, for instance poverty of imagination != QED, but he is well aware of the evolution of the gross anatomical aspects of the human eye. His critique of the blind watchmaker centered on the biochemistry of the eye, and it would be better if the video did as well. Instead, by writing him off as a "pseudoscientific" fraud, or similar ad hominem attacks, they are guilty of equivalent logical fallacies, and should be given equivalent respect. The guy is actually a scientist, with publications in journals such as Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the Journal of Molecular Biology, and the Journal of Biophysiology, on topics like DNA and protein structure. Frankly, unless there is a CV somewhere I can see for these qualia-soup people, Behe has them trumped on credentials, so they might avoid the ad hominem, and critique the substance of the actual arguments put forth.

sounds similar to

http://www.algenolbiofuels.com/
http://www.technologyreview.com/business/23009/

....

and then, there is this advancement from yet another company
http://www.zymetis.com/
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/22307/
...

and, to put it all in perspective, there is this from barely two years ago!
http://www.onethread.org/arise/?p=73

"In a recent article, “The Price of Biofuels“, David Rotman predicts that “significant technological breakthroughs” will be necessary to reach a goal in the United States of producing 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuel by 2030. A professor of chemical engineering and biochemistry at Caltech, Fraces Arnold, says there are formidable barriers to the development of new biofuels:

“The bottom line is that you’re going to have to make fuel cheap. We can all make a little bit of something. But you have to make a lot of it, and you have got to make it cheaply. The problem is so huge that your technology has got to scale up.”

Three major challenges cited in converting biomass to biofuel include:
a.Optimizing yield, quality, and transportation of biomass
b.Improving the process of developing sugars from biomass
c.Creating highly efficient biological pathways to convert sugars into biofuel


Professor Gregory Stephanopoulos of MIT believes that a systems approach will likely be required to solve the multidimensional issues associated with creating an inexpensive biofuel generation process; an anticipated solution is a hybrid procedure that incorporates advances in both chemistry and biology.
-------

Well, I guess they solved those problems pretty quick.

stupid education and science, making our health better by helping us be more compatible with our environment.

understanding how to identify a problem, seeing that there is a solution and then implementing the solution.... what is this country becoming? Comm-rape-ulist ChiRussia? BURY YER GUNS AND YER COMBUSTION ENGINES!! THEY TOOK YER FUEL!!! TUK ER!!! DEMOCRATS ARE RUINING EVERYTHING RABBLE RABBLE