|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,784 Year: 4,041/9,624 Month: 912/974 Week: 239/286 Day: 46/109 Hour: 0/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Converting raw energy into biological energy | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5875 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 5875 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Rob - pay attention to what people are telling you, please. At least two of us have already answered this question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5875 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
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 Inactive Member |
Hi, Rob.
They do not have an answer, so they definetely conclude that there is a material answer to the dillemma. 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. -
My intention is only to point that out and learn as much as I can in the process about your methods of obfuscation. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5875 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Chiroptera:
it is an assumption (or conclusion) that could be shown to be wrong if there were any evidence to the contrary. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Why do you assume they existed? 1) For the same reason I assume you have parents. Law of biogenesis. 2) We have their fossil remains, called "stromolites."
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'. 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Rob writes: We're talking about abiogenesis here... 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
There is... it's called the design inference.
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5875 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
2) We have their fossil remains, called "stromolites." So stromolites were the first living cell?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
So stromolites were the first living cell? No. Try to pay attention to what we're saying, ok?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4042 Joined: Member Rating: 8.0 |
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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
There is... it's called the design inference. 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. -
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. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5875 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Dr. Jones :
An inference is not evidence, it's (wait for it).... an Inference! 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...
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024