|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,838 Year: 4,095/9,624 Month: 966/974 Week: 293/286 Day: 14/40 Hour: 3/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Converting raw energy into biological energy | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5876 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
In a previous thread; http://EvC Forum: Miscellaneous Topics in Creation/Evolution / Take 2 -->EvC Forum: Miscellaneous Topics in Creation/Evolution / Take 2 AdminNosey writes:
As for reinstatement in the Origins thread you don't show any sign that you will be able to contribute and that you won't just clutter it up with 10th grade biology while others of us want to learn something about current chemical research in abiogenesis. What do you think you need to be back there for exactly? I have some more questions... Have you seen this article?: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070820/ap_on_sc/artificial_life This excerpt from it tells the true tale:
"Bedau figures there are three major hurdles to creating synthetic life: ” A container, or membrane, for the cell to keep bad molecules out, allow good ones, and the ability to multiply. ” A genetic system that controls the functions of the cell, enabling it to reproduce and mutate in response to environmental changes. ” A metabolism that extracts raw materials from the environment as food and then changes it into energy." I brought it up because of this post: http://EvC Forum: How to make a ribozyme (using abiotic starting compounds) -->EvC Forum: How to make a ribozyme (using abiotic starting compounds) And I want to focus on the last bullet point of the excerpt above. What evidence is there that raw energy is able to catalyze biological processes? Molbiogirl and Doddy were both suggesting (presupposing) that biological function had a precursor to fermentation, photosynthesis and respiration. But there is no such precursor found in the fossil record or anywhere else that I am aware of. They and Matt P, had been referring to self replicating enzymes that rely on these systems of energy conversion and other cell processes for which they exist, and are therefore not self replicating. I made the point to molbiogirl that they are not self anything... I was subsequently kicked out of origins for asking too many hard questions that some find sophomoric. Honestly, I did rant a bit and resort to Bible preaching when frustrated that my questions were obfuscated; I thought is was intentional. I do not believe so now. I think that some of you have simply moved past the evidence and take for granted that it is possible based upon your 'methodological naturalist' bias. Molbiogirl spoke of a theoretical explanation for the problem of energy conversion. And I must confess that it is probably internally coherent, but there is no external evidence to support or test it. I want to discuss the subject. Is there evidence of raw energy being useful for biological systems or not? And... would it take more energy to create a system of conversion than the raw energy to be converted provides? This question is the real problem thermodynamically. ( Thermodynamic Arguments for Creation ) Origin of Life please... Reinstatement please... Edited by Rob, : No reason given. Edited by Rob, : No reason given. Edited by Rob, : No reason given. Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5876 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Any CreoAdmin assistance is welcome also...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5876 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Rob: What evidence is there that raw energy is able to catalyze biological processes? Crash :Green plants. Case closed. What could be rawer than pure sunlight? But that's just it Crash... Plants do not operate on raw energy. They convert it into the biologically useable form (ATP for example) by way of photosynthesis. Certainly light did not spontaneously create that process. I first learned about thermodynamics and the incredibly complex processes of photosynthesis while reading a book on growing marijuana hydroponically; of course I never inhaled... Anyway, it does not solve the problem. The factory (photosynthesis http://www.creationwiki.net/Chloroplast ) that converts raw energy into ATP is itself dependant upon ATP. Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5876 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
jar:
What connection is there between your quote and your question? Read my response to crash...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5876 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Crash:
In other words they're changing the light energy of the sun into chemical energy stored inside of sugars. So, yes, they do operate on raw energy; the raw energy of sunlight which they change into the raw energy stored in the chemical bonds in sugar. I think the biggest problem for you right now is that there isn't, in fact, any such thing as "raw energy"; there is only energy in different forms. Chemical energy, heat energy, and light energy are all different forms of energy. But there's no "pure" or "raw" form of energy. You're missing the point Crash... So what if plants convert energy into a biologically usable form. Plants (including their chloroplasts) are made (constructed) from the biologically usable form, not the light form. So if ATP is neccessary to build a chloroplast, and the chloroplast converts light into ATP, then where did the ATP to build the chloroplast come from? Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5876 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
So did the radiation and the water create the bacteria?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5876 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Rahvin:
The spontaneity, Rob, is only in having the various ingredients present and then adding the requisite energy through sunlight Yeah... no problem! How many components (ingredients) are their in a simple little chloroplast let alone the plant?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5876 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Chiroptera:
Or is this intended to lead to the sort of argument that goes, "Here is a question; science does not yet have an answer to it; therefore, I am going to assert a definite conclusion about the matter?" Actually that is what modern science does as it is currently defined. They do not have an answer, so they definetely conclude that there is a material answer to the dillemma. My intention is only to point that out and learn as much as I can in the process about your methods of obfuscation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5876 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
jar:
I'm sorry but what does that have to do with the topic? In case you missed it, the topic of this thread is "Converting raw energy into biological energy" and has NOTHING to do with creating bacteria. Do you have anything related to the topic to contribute? You may want to reread my OP...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5876 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Rahvin:
Again, plants did not suddenly spring into being utilizing this process. They evolved from earlier organisms that also used photosynthesis, like the bacteria I mentioned. The first photosynthesizing organisms were likely forms of bacteria, in fact: see here. Is there any evidence for these imagined organisms in the fossil record, or anywhere else in biology?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5876 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Rahvin:
Saying that environment existing naturally is unlikely is silly, because it quite plainly did and does. Why did and does it plainly? Because life exists? Is that not an argument from incredulity?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5876 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Rob: How many components (ingredients) are their in a simple little chloroplast let alone the plant? Rahvin: Irrelevant. Given those conditions, photosynthesis will happen. Saying that environment existing naturally is unlikely is silly, because it quite plainly did and does. The chloroplast is a membrane-bound organelle within a cell that conducts photosynthesis. From the molecular perspective, the chloroplast is very large and contains millions of protein molecules along with vast sheets of membranes. If we imagine an average-sized enzyme molecule to be the size of an automobile, a chloroplast in a plant leaf cell would be about 6 kilometers on its long axis and about 2 kilometers on its short axis. The approximately cube-shaped plant cell, 15 to 20 kilometers per side, would contain fifty to one hundred of these compartments. ( http://www.bookrags.com/Chloroplast )
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5876 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
jar:
The issue of creating life is totally irrelevant and unimportant to the topic in this thread. You missed the fact that this is an 'Origins of Life ' thread? You can't make the connections? What's wrong with you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5876 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Rahvin:
It does becasue we SEE it occur naturally in plants and bacteria every day. Clearly those conditions can and do exist naturally. That is not an argument from incredulity, Rob, it's an observation. Very Good Rahvin! Bravo! So where do you observe these theorized evolutionary ancestors of modern plants and bacteria?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5876 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Rahvin:
Come on Rob. Read the links we provide. I did... I was referring to the first forms (thier ancestors) that are theorized. Why do you assume they existed?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024