Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Converting raw energy into biological energy
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 46 of 314 (419405)
09-02-2007 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Rob
09-02-2007 2:31 PM


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'.
You realize that abiogenesis is not the same as the origin of photosynthesis, right? It's not likely that the first living organism utilized photosynthesis, and neither did the first photosynthesizing organism form from nonliving material.
We assume that the precursors to modern photosynthesizing organisms existed becasue, as Crash pointed out long ago, we have fossil evidence of some of their leavings, and other precursors still exist today like the bacteria I mentioned. They dont have to be dead to be precursors, Rob.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Rob, posted 09-02-2007 2:31 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Rob, posted 09-02-2007 2:54 PM Rahvin has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 47 of 314 (419406)
09-02-2007 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Chiroptera
09-02-2007 2:47 PM


Chirptera:
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?
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Chiroptera, posted 09-02-2007 2:47 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by jar, posted 09-02-2007 2:55 PM Rob has not replied
 Message 52 by Chiroptera, posted 09-02-2007 3:05 PM Rob has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 48 of 314 (419407)
09-02-2007 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Rahvin
09-02-2007 2:50 PM


Rahvin:
You realize that abiogenesis is not the same as the origin of photosynthesis, right?
Yes, if you go back and read the OP you will see:
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.
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...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Rahvin, posted 09-02-2007 2:50 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by jar, posted 09-02-2007 2:57 PM Rob has replied
 Message 54 by crashfrog, posted 09-02-2007 4:57 PM Rob has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 49 of 314 (419408)
09-02-2007 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Rob
09-02-2007 2:52 PM


on design
Why not consider all the options... both design and material?
If anyone ever presents any evidence of design that stands up to examination, then it will be considered.
Why not also consider magic and fairy dust?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Rob, posted 09-02-2007 2:52 PM Rob has not replied

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 50 of 314 (419409)
09-02-2007 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Rob
09-02-2007 2:49 PM


considering the immense (in fact incomprehensible) complexity of living organisms.
Just because you can't comprehend it doesn't mean it's incomprehensible.
Quaternary digital codes that instruct the building of chloroplasts don't just pop out of chemical soups when you add light.
No one is saying they do, this is a straw man.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Rob, posted 09-02-2007 2:49 PM Rob has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 51 of 314 (419410)
09-02-2007 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Rob
09-02-2007 2:54 PM


read links Rob
rob writes:
But there is no such precursor found in the fossil record or anywhere else that I am aware of.
But you have been given links to at least one example of a creature that directly converts water to usable energy from just the natural decay of uranium in rocks.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Rob, posted 09-02-2007 2:54 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Rob, posted 09-02-2007 4:57 PM jar has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 314 (419411)
09-02-2007 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Rob
09-02-2007 2:52 PM


Why not consider all the options... both design and material?
Sure. But there are no plausible candidates for a designer. As far as we know, there is no designer, no evidence that there ever was a designer, and no testable ideas concerning any designer. So, not only does science not have anything to work with, there is no option for me to consider here. Before I can consider a designer as a possible explanation for anything, there has to be some reasonable possibility that such a designer ever existed at the right time and the right place. What designer may have existed on the earth 4 1/2 billion years ago? What evidence is there that such an entity did exist? You're trying to put the cart before the horse here: first present evidence that there was some entity that could have done any designing, then we can consider it as a candidate for having done the designing.
As far as "material", we do have historical precedent of phenomena that were once inexplicable (and attributed to the action of gods) but ended up having purely naturalistic explanations, so it is not unreasonable to think that such a thing can occur again. We also have some understanding of the workings of nature (which we call "the laws of nature"), and knowing these "laws" in chemistry and physics allows the construction of possible hypotheses and the means of testing them.
Edited by Chiroptera, : typos

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Rob, posted 09-02-2007 2:52 PM Rob has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 53 of 314 (419414)
09-02-2007 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Rob
09-01-2007 7:23 PM


Hi Rob,
You are correct that science, working within the framework of methodological naturalism, will always assume natural causes. So when you ask about the origin of the ability to transform "raw energy" into "biological energy", the answer is just chemistry.
If you ever took chemistry in high school then you'll remember that many experiments included a step where you heated a mixture over a Bunsen burner. The heat from the Bunsen burner is your "raw energy", and it drives the chemical reactions. Energy, whether in the form of heat or light or cosmic rays or particles related to radioactivity, drives chemical reactions. It's a completely natural phenomenon. Life powers itself by taking advantage of the fact that energy drives chemical reactions.
In reconstructing the history of life, science will only consider processes for which there is evidence, like chemical reactions driven by heat or light, and change in species over time. We have no evidence of any processes driven by supernatural agents, so science cannot consider such possibilities. The idea of the existence of supernatural agents springs from religion and spirituality and not from evidence from the natural world.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Rob, posted 09-01-2007 7:23 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by molbiogirl, posted 09-02-2007 5:07 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 61 by Rob, posted 09-02-2007 5:26 PM Percy has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 54 of 314 (419420)
09-02-2007 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Rob
09-02-2007 2:54 PM


But there is no such precursor found in the fossil record or anywhere else that I am aware of.
Jesus christ, is that what this is about?
Fuckin-a, Rob. It's called "chemosynthesis." Bacteria that live near deep-sea ocean vents survive off of raw mineral materials and form the basis of an entire ecosystem that never sees the light of the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Rob, posted 09-02-2007 2:54 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Rob, posted 09-02-2007 5:03 PM crashfrog has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 55 of 314 (419421)
09-02-2007 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by jar
09-02-2007 2:57 PM


Re: read links Rob
jar:
But you have been given links to at least one example of a creature that directly converts water to usable energy from just the natural decay of uranium in rocks.
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...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by jar, posted 09-02-2007 2:57 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by crashfrog, posted 09-02-2007 5:20 PM Rob has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 56 of 314 (419423)
09-02-2007 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by crashfrog
09-02-2007 4:57 PM


Crash:
Bacteria that live near deep-sea ocean vents survive off of raw mineral materials and form the basis of an entire ecosystem that never sees the light of the sun.
ATP
They use ATP.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by crashfrog, posted 09-02-2007 4:57 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by crashfrog, posted 09-02-2007 5:17 PM Rob has replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 57 of 314 (419424)
09-02-2007 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Percy
09-02-2007 3:50 PM


Pre Biotic Energy Sources
...the answer is just chemistry.
I want to elaborate just a smidge for Rob's sake.
From TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy:
Creationist view of abiogenesis: simple chemicals --> bacteria
Real view of abiogenesis: simple chemicals --> polymers --> replicating polymers --> hypercycle --> protobiont --> bacteria
Another way of looking at abiogenesis: simple chemicals --> basic building blocks --> catalytic polymers + abiotic metabolism pre-RNA world --> RNA world --> DNA/protein world
FYI, Rob, everything to the left of protobiont/RNA world (in yellow) is driven by chemistry (i.e. without photosynthesis/fermentation/respiration).
Do you want to discuss the pre biotic chemistry (which does not include photosynthesis/fermentation/respiration) or biotic chemistry (which includes photosynthesis/fermentation/respiration)?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Percy, posted 09-02-2007 3:50 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Rob, posted 09-02-2007 5:26 PM molbiogirl has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 58 of 314 (419425)
09-02-2007 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Rob
09-02-2007 5:03 PM


They use ATP.
That's not surprising. Nearly one out of every 1000 randomly-generated proteins binds ATP, which can easily be generated by simple chemical reactions. Its constituent products occur inorganically.
Just saying "ATP! ATP!" isn't a coherent response to what we're telling you. And let me remind you again - biochemists aren't fucking morons, so the idea that they've never thought of how early organisms would come to have an energy economy based on phosphating ADP is just ludicrous on its face.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Rob, posted 09-02-2007 5:03 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Rob, posted 09-02-2007 6:16 PM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 59 of 314 (419426)
09-02-2007 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Rob
09-02-2007 4:57 PM


Re: read links Rob
How do we account for metabolism to begin with?
ADP and AMP are naturally occuring; nearly one out of every thousand random polypeptides can bind ADP to a phosphate under energetically-favorable circumstances.
ATP is not someting that exists naturally (ie. chemically).
Yes, it is. Is this, perhaps, the source of your confusion? The idea that you can't form ADP or ATP inorganically? Nothing could be further from the truth, I assure you.
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Rob, posted 09-02-2007 4:57 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Rob, posted 09-02-2007 5:22 PM crashfrog has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 60 of 314 (419428)
09-02-2007 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by crashfrog
09-02-2007 5:20 PM


Re: read links Rob
Crash:
The idea that you can't form ADP or ATP inorganically? Nothing could be further from the truth, I assure you.
Don't assure me... Show me...
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by crashfrog, posted 09-02-2007 5:20 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by crashfrog, posted 09-02-2007 5:36 PM Rob has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024