Converting raw energy into biological energy

I was referring to the first forms (their ancestors) that are theorized.Why do you assume they existed?We're talking about abiogenesis here... how any of you missed that in the OP is beyond me. Perhpas I should have used the word 'Abiogenesis'.All of the comments from molbiogirl , Doddy, and Matt P that I referred to in the OP were taken from abiogenesis threads. Sorry for any confusion.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Chiroptera: There is... it's called the design inference.But I am here trying mostly to point to the complete void of explanation for the appearence of the first living cell because of it's predependance upon energy in a biologically useable form.

So stromolites were the first living cell?

Dr. Jones : That's what much of science is yes.The fact is, that we know and have evidence that intelligence can design systems and build them. So we infer design elsewhere especially considering the immense (in fact incomprehensible) complexity of living organisms. Quaternary digital codes that instruct the building of chloroplasts don't just pop out of chemical soups when you add light. That's what the evidence and the research shows...

Chirptera: It's a good point...But we could just as easily ask why 'there must not have been' is a reasonable conclusion?Why not consider all the options... both design and material?

Rahvin: Yes, if you go back and read the OP you will see: Crash is the one who jumped on the photopynthesis bit..I think everyone needs to go back and read the OP.Relax, take a breath, and let it sink in...

jar: The energy source is not the issue jar. Do you understand?This organism is still dependant upon ATP. It converts energy of one kind into ATP. How do we account for metabolism to begin with?You're still missing the point!How are energy conversion sytems built when the converted energy needed to build them (ATP) has not yet been converted?How is ATP made?You boys (and girls) are assuming the existence of the very thing your trying to explain.ATP is not someting that exists naturally (ie. chemically). It is converted by biological processes (factories / machines). But in turn, biological processes cannot exist until ATP is present to build them.We've got a problem...

Crash: ATPThey use ATP.

Crash: Don't assure me... Show me...Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Thanks Percy and molbiogirl... my head is spinning... Have a barbeque to go to.... Can't go on...I am however looking forward to engaging calm and reasoned discussions when I get my concentration back. At the moment, I feel I am in the middle of some great and disastrous fillabuster.I'll respond later...

http://EvC Forum: Converting raw energy into biological energy -->EvC Forum: Converting raw energy into biological energy

Crash: Certainly there is an article on the subject you could post a link to...Or... not!It's a real problem Crash... don't get so wound up. We can look at it objectively together if we try.

Chiroptera: Thanks...

Let's take a day or so to think and settle down.Crash: As I said in the Op:

molbiogirl: You're not serious are you? Doddy could not have made it more clear that his formula was completely theoretical.Feel free to read through that whole thread again if you want... I found Doddy to be very reasonable. he seems to understand the questions I am asking and their relevance, even though he believes that there is a natural explanation. I'd love to have him participate in these dicussions.molbiogirl: I am questioning the entire premise...What catalytic polymers?What abiotic metabolism?What RNA world?You act as though these things are realities... they are assumed theoretical explanations for what actually exists today. The evidence is the fossil record and living species, neither of which give any indication at all of the entities mentioned above existing in any known state other than being completely dependant upon a larger biological system in which they are only a part.