Converting raw energy into biological energy

Rahvin: Very Good Rahvin!Bravo!So where do you observe these theorized evolutionary ancestors of modern plants and bacteria?

Rahvin: I did...I was referring to the first forms (thier ancestors) that are theorized.Why do you assume they existed?

Rob - pay attention to what people are telling you, please. At least two of us have already answered this question.

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.

Hi, Rob. Well, I would say that it's more of a working assumption than a definite conclusion. In either case, it is an assumption (or conclusion) that could be shown to be wrong if there were any evidence to the contrary.- Alright. If you see any "obfuscation", be sure to point out to me the details of their "methods". Be sure to give the post a descriptive subtitle in case I lose interest in this thread and quit following it regularly.-By the way, your posts in this thread are pretty clear and readable. I want to commend your efforts here.

---

I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders

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.

1) For the same reason I assume you have parents. Law of biogenesis.2) We have their fossil remains, called "stromolites." Yes, that might have helped, since none of us are mind-readers. It does often help to get everyone on the same page when you actually say what the page is supposed to be. But no, you're not talking about abiogenesis. You're talking about metabolism, remember?

I don't see what abiogenesis has to do with organisms using "raw energy". The first abiogenetic life-forms could/would have survived by "eating" chemicals. Photosynthesis could/would have developed later.You're talking about the evolution of metabolism, not abiogenesis.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

An inference is not evidence, it's (wait for it).... an Inference!

---

Live every week like it's Shark Week!
Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

So stromolites were the first living cell?

And you think that's something that biochemists have never, ever thought of? Ever?You think that research biochemists, with ten years of studies just to get the degree and decades of professional study, have imagined every single property of what life's humble origins must have been like... except for what it ate?I don't understand some of you creationists at all. Even when I was a creationist, I was never such an asshole that I assumed that all scientists were fucking morons, as you seem to. They did after all bring us such things as computers and medicine.

No.Try to pay attention to what we're saying, ok?

And your point being "I cant believe organisms could naturally evolve to utilize such a complex process, despite the fact that plants and bacteria are doing it right now all around me."That's another argument from incredulity, Rob. I know how photosynthesis works, that's not our argument. It exists naturally, right outside your window. If you claim that such a complex process could not naturally come to exist, you'll have to provide some evidence beyond "I dont beleive it can."

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Sure. But how do you test it? When people make proposals for hypotheical natural pathways, people can test these in laboratories and by studying geological formations of the correct age to determine whether they are plausible or not. This is what abiogenesis research is all about -- doing experiments in laboratories to construct, test, refine, and reject plausible natural pathways.But as far as I know, no one has ever made a testable prediction based on the "design inference". The only claimants I know of are Behe and Dembski, but both of those are really just, "We don't know the answer, so it couldn't have happened", with a bunch of junk math thrown in to hide this fact.So, until proponents of the "design inference" can come up with a testable hypothesis, there really isn't anything there for scientists to work with.- I doubt that there is a complete void. But the point still stands: even if science does not yet know the answer to the question, how does "it must have been a designer!" become a reasonable conclusion?

---

I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders

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...