Creationist Reasoning for Rubisco's Flaw

This is a question for a biologist (or someone with a good understanding of biology) who is also a creationist. But, so that everyone can get the jist of the argument, I will do my best to explain everything.Starting with some background:Photosynthesis is the process by which plants, and some animals, make food in the form of glucose typically from sunlight, CO2, and water. Photosynthesis has two main parts:
1) Light reactions: light energy is used to split H2O into H+ (protons) and O2, and to use those protons to make energy (in the form of ATP and NADPH).This energy is then used to power the second part of photosynthesis,2) The Calvin Cycle: Basically constructs sugar from CO2 in a number of steps, which I will not cover.The first part of the Calvin Cycle is Carbon Fixation, where the CO2 is attached to RuBP, a five-carbon sugar, by an enzyme called Ribulose-Biphosphate Carboxylase, or Rubisco.CO2 attaches to the active site (a part of an enzyme) and is then attached to RuBP. However, O2 is also a good fit for the active site of Rubisco. In fact, O2 is a better fit than CO2, and therefore is a competitive inhibitor; that is, Rubisco will accept O2 before CO2.When O2 gets to rubisco first, bad things happen for the plant. Instead of making a 6-carbon sugar as it should, the mistaken rubisco will actually cause the 5-carbon sugar to split into a 3- and 2-carbon sugar. The 2-carbon sugar is useless, and is exported from the chloroplast. This process of mistaken substrate is called photorespiration, and is bad for plants because it depletes its stores of starch.But why does rubisco accept the oxygen, when that leads to disaster for the plant? Well, according to modern theory, it is evolutionary baggage. When rubisco first came around about 1.5 Billion years ago, there wasn't much oxygen in the atmosphere. Therefore, it didn't really matter whether or not rubisco accepted O2 at all, much less over CO2.This all leads to my question:What is the creationist reason for rubisco's flaw?-Joe*EDIT*
For clarification, rubisco's flaw is that it has a higher affinity for oxygen than carbon dioxide, thus causing the problem of photorespiraton.Edited by joeferrari15, : Clarification

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

I am not a creationist (yet), so I don't know how they might respond to your challenge, but I am wondering how the evolutionists would explain this flaw (assuming it really is a flaw and we just haven't understood its advantage). 1.5 billion years with trillions of plants duplicating every year as well as quadrillions of photosynthetic bacteria, and this flaw hasn't been corrected by the evolutionary process that produced whales in just 50 million years? This rubisco enzyme would seem to be more a Rubicon for evolutionists than for creationists.

Well I think that our author FastCarF may have had in thought a problem that minds the distinction of open and closed systems and thermodynamics along with a possible perspective of biological change where accidents occur and remain evolutionarily.If the poster has some background explanation for the loss of efficiency then Ferrari may be trying to draw creationists into an answer to the question of maladaptive designs.Your position states the standard old style Darwinian functionalism, in Gould's phrasings, but from a formal perspective the FORM of the openings of leaves to air is at least for me almost equivalent conceptually to the void or vacuum in the history of physics. If Joe insists further that creationists must attain to perfection on this account then any decrease in efficiency at the opening of the system must be at least sufficiently explained on creation but the evolutionists depending on the clade of training may simply state that this was all he or his (god)(sic!) had at his disposal. Edited by Brad McFall, : "of"Edited by Brad McFall, : spelling

It has been corrected in some plants, such as those in hot, dry conditions by the use of C4 and CAM photosynthesis.For other plants, photorespiration isn't a big enough problem to warrant a new process of photosynthesis--yet. I would predict however, that in the next hundred million years or so (this is assuming that the atmosphere keeps its chemical makeup that it has now--unlikely--but bear with me, for the sake of discussion) all plants will have developed some form of alternative photosynthesis in order to minimize photorespiration and maximize efficiency.So the question still stands...What is the creationist reasoning for rubisco's flaw?But that's beside the point. Plants wouldn't have had to evolve these new systems for photosynthesis if rubisco didn't have this flaw.

For some reason, I like the Brad that spoke in tongues better. I wasn't here then, but it certainly would be nice to observe first hand one of the most spectacular yet bizarre traits of this forum: the formulations and formations of Brad's jargon-like posts

Careful JoFe, your desperation is starting to show. First you tell us: Then you say" and: From these statements, we must conclude that the concentration of oxygen in the atmosphere is significantly higher in hot, dry climes than in cool, wet ones. Do you have some references to back up this inference? If, in fact and for some reason, c3 photosynthesis is a particular disadvantage for plants in hot dry climate, than providing a 'corrected' pathway for these plants is exactly what one would expect of a benevolent intelligent designer. But this represents a particularly difficult for evolutionists to explain because those same evolutionists try to tell us that the world is much older than 6000 years and is constantly changing. Those hot, dry areas were fairly recently cool, wet areas and vice versa (if we accept the old earth speculations.) For example, the Sahara was a fairly well drenched savanna up to about 6000 to 8000 years ago. So how do the c3 plants evolve into c4 plants if the environmental forcing function keeps repealing its mandate?But then we get to the most beautiful subterfuge of all: They haven't all done it in 1500 million years, but you assure us that the next 100 million years will bring a miracle. I guess we'll have to wait until then to see if what you are trying to pass off as science can finally make a valid prediction. Of course, creation science can explain the current situation right now. As you yourself assert, the c3 pathway is not a serious problem for plant life as we can readily determine by just taking a look around us. It might not be perfect, but this is the earth, corrupted with sin and far from perfection. And of course 100 million years from now all plant life will be enjoying the most efficient and non-deleterious pathways: after the Rapture (which is going to happen a lot sooner), the earth will have returned to its pre-fall lugubriousness and state of divine perfection.

As I diagrammed here
EvC Forum: Are human tails an example of macroevolution?
I personally DO feel and think threre IS a C/E ILLUSION. It is only fair to new posters not to tred in shallow waters when it is really really very deep a step or two beyond.I want to see everyone be given a chance so I wanted there to be some kind of timbre added to AIG's response towards a more intricate tone.

You misunderstand (and perhaps this is because I did not adequately explain photorespiration) what causes photorespiration. You say:

quote:

---

From these statements, we must conclude that the concentration of oxygen in the atmosphere is significantly higher in hot, dry climes than in cool, wet ones.

---

What happens in hot, dry areas that causes photorespiration is this:Stomata (the openings in plants that allow for CO2 to come into the plant for photosynthesis) are also the main sites of transpiration (the evaporative loss of water from leaves). In order to combat this, plants in hot, dry areas close their stomata, thus drastically reducing the amount of water lost.However, the closing of the stomata not only keeps water vapor from leaving the leaf, but also prevents oxygen (a product of photosynthesis) from leaving as well. As CO2 is used up in photosynthesis and O2 is produced, it follows that there will soon be more O2 in the leaf than CO2. Now, the concentration difference between O2 and CO2 wouldn't matter at all (other than that the plant would run out of CO2 with which to perform photosynthesis) if rubisco didn't have this flaw that I keep talking about that it has a higher affinity for oxygen than CO2. Obviously, since there are more O2 molecules in the leaf than CO2, rubisco will begin to accept O2, thus causing photorespiration.You go on to say:

quote:

---

...but you assure us that the next 100 million years will bring a miracle.

---

Two points:1) Science NEVER predicts miracles
and
2) I put a very important caviat on my statement: The atmosphere would have to keep its same chemical makeup as it has now. Since this is a dynamic universe we live in, this obviously can't happen. It was a hypothetical situation.

quote:

---

It might not be perfect, but this is the earth, corrupted with sin and far from perfection.

---

So sinful plants are punished with photorespiration?

quote:

---

And of course 100 million years from now all plant life will be enjoying the most efficient and non-deleterious pathways: after the Rapture (which is going to happen a lot sooner)

---

You know when the rapture is going to happen? Do tell.One other thing:

quote:

---

For example, the Sahara was a fairly well drenched savanna up to about 6000 to 8000 years ago.

---

If the Earth is 6000 years old, how could the Sahara existed as a drenched Savanna 8000 years ago?On my scientific arguments, I reference ch. 10 of Biology by Campbell and Reece : http://www.aw-bc.com/info/campbell6e/Edited by joeferrari15, : Proper embedding of quotes

AnInGe is playing Devil's Advocate there, Joe. Sneaky evilutionist that he is.......

Not 'perhaps' and not 'not adequately'. You didn't explain it at all. You just made some blind assertions and demanded: "Hey, creationists! Explain this." Typical of the kind of half-truth, half-assed work that is passed off as science by so-called 'evolutionary biologists'. This is exactly why the benevolent designer provided the plants in these environments with the c4 and cam pathways. Science doesn't, but you did! Only a miracle will evolve a c3 kind into a c4 kind. The multitude of changes required in the genome, all of which must occur simultaneously, cannot occur through natural random processes. As we have seen time and time again in this forum, the evolutionists desparate attempts to challenge creation science explanations of nature only wind up enforcing those basic truths! Yep. And with herbivores, which didn't exist before the fall. I'll just direct you to my source on this, Buzsaw. You totally misunderstand my point. The 8000 years comes from EVOLUTIONISTS writings. What you tell us about biology is inconsistent with what you tell us about geology. Only the bible gives a truly consistent explanation. So what? You asked for the CREATIONIST explanation for rubisco interactions. This reference is only of use to those who are interested in where you got your evolutionist indoctrination.I have clearly, concisely, and incontrovertibly answered your challenge. Do you have anything else you would like explained?

You are trying to ruin my fun. And the creationist position is really all kinds of fun. Maximum verbiage for minimum thought. But pal Joey barged into this den all by himself. Of course creationism can explain rubisco affinities and c4 pathways. It can explain anything you care to ask of it. I just wanted to show how easy it is to advance creationism/ID arguments while disparaging scientific ones, particularly in these breif posts. Remember, I am just a total neonate (a blastula?) at this. Science is all about the details, and it takes something like the three week Dover trial to get all the details on the table. (Or J. J. Gould's 1006 page book.)

I have seen similar lines presented by real creationists. What I never got an answer for is if there weren't any carnivore (supposedly animal didnt eat animal back then) or herbivore (plants are considered alive also), what the hell did the animal eat back then?

---

Place yourself on the map at http://www.frappr.com/evc

​

The thread about this map can be found here.

A more accurate creationist position would be that all of nature was corrupted after man's original sin. Ever since then things have been falling to pieces and getting worse. A bad creationist would say that the plants were designed perfectly for our atmosphere, but when sin and death entered the world through Adam/Eve life became less perfect and that includes plant life.A good creationist would say that whatever the plants were like at creation they were perfect for that environment. However, we do not know what the antediluvian atmosphere was like so we can't say for sure whether it is plants that have become corrupted or if it was just that the conditions on life got generally harder after God laid his benevolent curse on us all.Creationists know the latter is true, but whether plant life has degraded since the fall is not possible to tell simply by looking at its difficulties in respiration it faces today (though the deleterious effects of mutations would imply strongly that this is the case). We need to examine the atmosphere from 6,000 years ago, which as any creationist bad and good will tell you, is completely impossible. A good creationist might explain the reason it is impossible by saying the flood wiped any evidence and/or jumbled it all up.Hopefully that addresses your issue. Creationists have a perfect explanatory filter. Everything good and functional about the universe is as a result of God's love and perfection. Everything bad about the universe is as a result of man's sin and God's subsequent curse. Evidence cannot be presented that dates to before Noah's time because of the flood. Therefore pointing out a flaw in nature is not a problem for creationists.

This is marginally on topic in that it is related to the why do bad things happen now, when God created things perfectly question that is basically being asked. AiG gives us an answer.

quote:

---

The world before the Fall had no death, disease, or suffering, as God proclaimed the finished creation ”very good’ (Genesis 1:31). Consistent with this, God gave plants to the animals to eat (Genesis 1:29-30).

---

According to God, plants aren't alive in the 'Biblical sense'.

quote:

---

29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground”everything that has the breath of life in it”I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

---

A quick reminder, when I say it is (in my judgment) marginally on topic, what I mean to say is that further discussion will definitely be off topic. In the end, the on topic side of things is that the reason why a bad thing has happened is because of man's sin (be that a magic flood or eating a magic apple).