I have long been disgruntled by that popular video from Harvard and XVIVO — you know the one I’m talking about, the computer animation of a kinesin walking along a microtubule, carrying a massive vesicle. I wouldn’t use it in my classes because it’s too slick and well-done, and presents a too persuasive view of how the cell works. Where is the constant jostling by water molecules? Where is the stutter in a motion driven stochastically by molecular interactions? Where are all the other proteins competing for binding? It’s rigged to make the motion look so purposeful, which is why that video is so popular among creationists.
I’ve been huffy about it for over a decade, but no one cares, no one listens. But maybe you’ll listen now: Eric Betzig, winner of the chemistry Nobel in 2014, is saying exactly the same thing.
There is a place for simplified illustrations of biological processes. I use them all the time, to get across the specific interactions I’m trying to explain. But there is no place for hyper-detailed animations that portray the interior of a cell as a vast cavernous space with a scattering of robots carrying out missions along precisely engineered pathways.
Also, cells are really crowded with organelles. None of the neat, schematic stuff you see in most drawings.
To reach a “neat” reality, you need to go to the scale of virus particles, and maybe not even that.
Aren’t most biological processes dependent on random motion to bring them the right molecules? Making proteins requires the right tRNA to bond to the RNA triplet being exposed by the mRNA/ribosome, otherwise you don’t get the right amino acids in the protein. And how does the right tRNA get to the bonding spot? AFAIK it is random motion, which means the all the wrong tRNA also arrive at the bonding site, they just don’t bond because they have the wrong RNA triplet.
More generally, how does an enzyme find its substrate{s)? Again, it is random motion, which brings many wrong molecules to the enzyme. But the enzyme is very specific, so it only reacts to the right substrate. Not really Intelligent Design!
One easier illustration that gets through to even the veriest dunce: A superlative single skill doesn’t ensure an athlete’s victory, even for something as “simple” as the 100-meter dash; “bending it like Beckham” isn’t sufficient to create Beckham 2.0. And a cell is a helluva lot more complex than getting from A to B faster than anyone else over a very limited distance on a carefully-prepared surface with no obstacles, let alone a cell that’s part of a multicellular organism (like that footballer).
Unfortunately, there are a lot of loudmouths who are below the competence and understanding of the veriest dunce, so there is that to consider.
Almost 20 years ago, PZ posted an excellent explainer of what was misleading about that video:
https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/03/buffeted-by-the-winds-of-chanc/
Unfortunately, neither the FTB version nor the web archive of the original have the illustrations. Dead image links everywhere.
@PZ: maybe a repost with the images fixed is in order?