|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Converting raw energy into biological energy | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5869 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4039 Joined: Member Rating: 8.1 |
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? You require ATP for energy, too, Rob. If your body converts food into ATP, and ATP energy was required for you to grow, where did the ATP to grow you come from? Your mother. In the plant's case, the seed from the parent plant. 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. The very first photosynthesis would have occurred much like the first "life" - the right chemicals happened to be present, and the result was a chemical reaction that would continue to spawn similar reactions so long as the right conditions were present. Imperfections in the spawning process allowed for variation, which resulted in evolution, and eventually in the variety of life we see today. Life is just chemistry, Rob - no processes are "created," elements and molecules simply behave in certain ways due to the laws of nature. The right chemical compounds in the right environment will always perform the same reactions, and no intent, intelligence, or spontaneous creation is necessary. I like the projection, though. Creationists assume spontaneous creation. Evolutionists do not, but creationists accuse evolutionists of doing so. Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5869 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...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
So what if plants convert energy into a biologically usable form. I have no idea about the "so what." You'd have to tell me. Because that's what you asked for. An example of organisms using raw energy to catalyze biological processes. Well, that's exactly what plants do. They're the textbook example of it. Plants take raw sunlight and they use it to build sugars from water and CO2 gas. They catalyze the formation of glucose from water and CO2 using the energy of the sun. It's exactly what you asked for, Rob. Maybe you should have asked a better question. Maybe it's that you have no idea what the hell you're talking about?
Plants (including their chloroplasts) are made (constructed) from the biologically usable form, not the light form. Light is the biologically usable form, because they have chloroplasts that use it. Other cell processes need energy in another, chemical form; generally stored as the bond between the second and third phosphates in ATP. The cell gets that energy from a process called "respiration", which all living things do, where glucose is reacted with oxygen and the chemical energy is released and used to cram a third phosphate on the end of a molecule of ADP.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4039 Joined: Member Rating: 8.1 |
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? Irrelevant. Given those conditions, photosynthesis will happen. Saying that environment existing naturally is unlikely is silly, because it quite plainly did and does. So you are correct - there is no problem. Now, try something that's not an argument from incredulity. Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5869 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 5869 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Is there any evidence for these imagined organisms in the fossil record, or anywhere else in biology? Cyanobacteria? Yes, abundant evidence. For one thing, they're still around. For another, their fossilized remains - called "stromolites" - are some of the oldest fossils known to man. Nothing imagined about them. You can look around you and see them, under a microscope.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4039 Joined: Member Rating: 8.1 |
Is there any evidence for these imagined organisms in the fossil record, or anywhere else in biology? Other than the fact that they still exist? Come on Rob. Read the links we provide. Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Is that not an argument from incredulity? That you're making? Yes, it is. Maybe you're not aware what "incredulity" means. It means "I can't believe that, no matter what evidence you place before me." Believing in something because there's evidence for it all around us is the exact opposite of incredulity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4039 Joined: Member Rating: 8.1 |
Why did and does it plainly? Because life exists? Is that not an argument from incredulity? 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. Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I did read the OP. I even quoted your direction:
Rob writes: 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? which was related to:
quote: I pointed out that your question was unrelated to the bulleted information and irrelevant to the topic of the thread. I also provided a link to an example of bacteria that break down water using the radiation of decaying uranium and that live miles below the ground and have been isolated from the sun for millions of years. The issue of creating life is totally irrelevant and unimportant to the topic in this thread. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5869 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 5869 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
So what? It's big from a molecular perspective.
You don't believe that chloroplasts even exist, now? Because that would contradict your religion? Go outside and look at a plant. I assure you, they're there.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024