Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9038 total)
225 online now:
nwr, Phat (AdminPhat), Pollux (3 members, 222 visitors)
Newest Member: Barry Deaborough
Post Volume: Total: 885,690 Year: 3,336/14,102 Month: 277/724 Week: 35/91 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Converting raw energy into biological energy
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4750 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 1 of 314 (419243)
09-01-2007 7:23 PM


In a previous thread; www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=25&t=3062&m=1#2 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=25&t=3062&m=1#2">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=25&t=3062&m=1#2 AdminNosey writes:
As for reinstatement in the Origins thread you don't show any sign that you will be able to contribute and that you won't just clutter it up with 10th grade biology while others of us want to learn something about current chemical research in abiogenesis. What do you think you need to be back there for exactly?

I have some more questions...

Have you seen this article?: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070820/ap_on_sc/artificial_life

This excerpt from it tells the true tale:

"Bedau figures there are three major hurdles to creating synthetic life:

• A container, or membrane, for the cell to keep bad molecules out, allow good ones, and the ability to multiply.

• A genetic system that controls the functions of the cell, enabling it to reproduce and mutate in response to environmental changes.

• A metabolism that extracts raw materials from the environment as food and then changes it into energy."

I brought it up because of this post: www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=13&t=87&m=50#50 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=13&t=87&m=50#50">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=13&t=87&m=50#50

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?

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.

They and Matt P, had been referring to self replicating enzymes that rely on these systems of energy conversion and other cell processes for which they exist, and are therefore not self replicating. I made the point to molbiogirl that they are not self anything...

I was subsequently kicked out of origins for asking too many hard questions that some find sophomoric. Honestly, I did rant a bit and resort to Bible preaching when frustrated that my questions were obfuscated; I thought is was intentional. I do not believe so now. I think that some of you have simply moved past the evidence and take for granted that it is possible based upon your 'methodological naturalist' bias. Molbiogirl spoke of a theoretical explanation for the problem of energy conversion. And I must confess that it is probably internally coherent, but there is no external evidence to support or test it. I want to discuss the subject.

Is there evidence of raw energy being useful for biological systems or not? And... would it take more energy to create a system of conversion than the raw energy to be converted provides? This question is the real problem thermodynamically. ( http://nwcreation.net/videos/thermodynamic_arguments.html )

Origin of Life please... Reinstatement please...

Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Edited by Rob, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by jar, posted 09-02-2007 12:04 PM Rob has responded
 Message 5 by crashfrog, posted 09-02-2007 12:11 PM Rob has responded
 Message 13 by Chiroptera, posted 09-02-2007 1:58 PM Rob has responded
 Message 53 by Percy, posted 09-02-2007 3:50 PM Rob has responded

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4750 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 2 of 314 (419297)
09-01-2007 11:41 PM


Any CreoAdmin assistance is welcome also...

Admin
Director
Posts: 12719
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 3 of 314 (419332)
09-02-2007 7:12 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

jar
Member
Posts: 33343
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 4 of 314 (419358)
09-02-2007 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Rob
09-01-2007 7:23 PM


What is the relation?
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?

The last bullet was:

quote:
• A metabolism that extracts raw materials from the environment as food and then changes it into energy."

What connection is there between your quote and your question?


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Rob, posted 09-02-2007 1:16 PM jar has responded

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 368 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 5 of 314 (419361)
09-02-2007 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Rob
09-01-2007 7:23 PM


What evidence is there that raw energy is able to catalyze biological processes?

Green plants.

Case closed. What could be rawer than pure sunlight?


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Rob, posted 09-02-2007 1:15 PM crashfrog has responded

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4750 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 6 of 314 (419365)
09-02-2007 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by crashfrog
09-02-2007 12:11 PM


Rob:
What evidence is there that raw energy is able to catalyze biological processes?

Crash :Green plants. Case closed. What could be rawer than pure sunlight?

But that's just it Crash... Plants do not operate on raw energy. They convert it into the biologically useable form (ATP for example) by way of photosynthesis. Certainly light did not spontaneously create that process.

I first learned about thermodynamics and the incredibly complex processes of photosynthesis while reading a book on growing marijuana hydroponically; of course I never inhaled... :D

Anyway, it does not solve the problem. The factory (photosynthesis http://www.creationwiki.net/Chloroplast ) that converts raw energy into ATP is itself dependant upon ATP.

Edited by Rob, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by crashfrog, posted 09-02-2007 12:11 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by crashfrog, posted 09-02-2007 1:43 PM Rob has responded
 Message 12 by Rahvin, posted 09-02-2007 1:58 PM Rob has responded

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4750 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 7 of 314 (419366)
09-02-2007 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by jar
09-02-2007 12:04 PM


Re: What is the relation?
jar:
What connection is there between your quote and your question?

Read my response to crash...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by jar, posted 09-02-2007 12:04 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by jar, posted 09-02-2007 1:20 PM Rob has responded

jar
Member
Posts: 33343
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 8 of 314 (419367)
09-02-2007 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Rob
09-02-2007 1:16 PM


Re: What is the relation?
I did. I still have no idea what you are asking or what the relationship is between your quoted section and your question.

AbE: Found the link I wanted.

The instance you and Crashfrog are discussion is one that is fairly far along the line. There are also living things that use other sources of energy, things like the radiation from residual uranium in rock.

In this article they discuss bacteria that use radiation from decaying uranium to convert water into usable energy and that have been living below ground, away from the sun for several million years.

Edited by jar, : add link


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Rob, posted 09-02-2007 1:16 PM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Rob, posted 09-02-2007 1:57 PM jar has responded

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 368 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 9 of 314 (419368)
09-02-2007 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Rob
09-02-2007 1:15 PM


They convert it into the biologically useable form (ATP for example) by way of photosynthesis.

Yes, that's close. Plants turn water and CO2 into glucose in chloroplasts. CO2 and water don't, by themselves, represent enough chemical energy to make this reaction spontaneous, so plants utilize the energy of the sun to make up the deficit.

In other words they're changing the light energy of the sun into chemical energy stored inside of sugars. So, yes, they do operate on raw energy; the raw energy of sunlight which they change into the raw energy stored in the chemical bonds in sugar.

I think the biggest problem for you right now is that there isn't, in fact, any such thing as "raw energy"; there is only energy in different forms. Chemical energy, heat energy, and light energy are all different forms of energy. But there's no "pure" or "raw" form of energy.

If you don't believe that sunlight is necessary to green plants, they by all means, plant some corn or beans in a dark closet and see what happens. The seed has just enough energy to get a shoot up out of the soil, but after that, it needs sunlight and water to make sugars.

Anyway, it does not solve the problem.

What problem? Plants use sunlight to catalyze the formation of water and CO2 into sugars. That's exactly what you were asking for.

Case closed, as I said.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Rob, posted 09-02-2007 1:15 PM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Rob, posted 09-02-2007 1:55 PM crashfrog has responded

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4750 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 10 of 314 (419369)
09-02-2007 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by crashfrog
09-02-2007 1:43 PM


Crash:
In other words they're changing the light energy of the sun into chemical energy stored inside of sugars. So, yes, they do operate on raw energy; the raw energy of sunlight which they change into the raw energy stored in the chemical bonds in sugar.

I think the biggest problem for you right now is that there isn't, in fact, any such thing as "raw energy"; there is only energy in different forms. Chemical energy, heat energy, and light energy are all different forms of energy. But there's no "pure" or "raw" form of energy.

You're missing the point Crash...

So what if plants convert energy into a biologically usable form. Plants (including their chloroplasts) are made (constructed) from the biologically usable form, not the light form.

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?

Edited by Rob, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by crashfrog, posted 09-02-2007 1:43 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Rahvin, posted 09-02-2007 2:09 PM Rob has responded
 Message 19 by crashfrog, posted 09-02-2007 2:11 PM Rob has not yet responded

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4750 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 11 of 314 (419370)
09-02-2007 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by jar
09-02-2007 1:20 PM


Re: What is the relation?
So did the radiation and the water create the bacteria?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by jar, posted 09-02-2007 1:20 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by jar, posted 09-02-2007 2:01 PM Rob has responded

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3966
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 12 of 314 (419371)
09-02-2007 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Rob
09-02-2007 1:15 PM


But that's just it Crash... Plants do not operate on raw energy. They convert it into the biologically useable form (ATP for example) by way of photosynthesis. Certainly light did not spontaneously create that process.

Nothing "created" any process, Rob. You seem to be operating under the assumption that there is some intelligence or intent involved here. There is not. There is only chemistry. When you mix hydrogen and oxygen, and ignite the combination, you get an energetic reaction that produces water. When you mis iron oxide and aluminum and ignite the combination, you get an extremely energetic reaction that produces aluminum oxide and molten elemental iron.

Anyway, it does not solve the problem. The factory (photosynthesis http://www.creationwiki.net/Chloroplast ) that converts raw energy into ATP is itself dependant upon ATP.

Green plants use sunlight to make ATP out of soil nutrients and water, yes - but saying that the "process is dependent on ATP" is as ridiculous as saying that the hydrogen/oxygen reaction is dependent on water.

The spontaneity, Rob, is only in having the various ingredients present and then adding the requisite energy through sunlight. Plants are not the only organisms that do this, and there are other forms of energy utilized by other organisms, as well. Many extremophiles use chemical energy and heat bubbling up from geothermal vents. Various forms of bacteria use photosynthesis. It's a chemical process that allows the conversion of solar energy into storable chemical energy, but there was no "spontaneous creation" of this process. It's simply what happens under the correct conditions, and plants have evolved in such a way that they exploit it. Nothing more.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Rob, posted 09-02-2007 1:15 PM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Rob, posted 09-02-2007 2:01 PM Rahvin has responded

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 314 (419372)
09-02-2007 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Rob
09-01-2007 7:23 PM


Hi, Rob.

Are you simply asking for information?

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?"


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

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Rob, posted 09-02-2007 2:07 PM Chiroptera has responded

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4750 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 14 of 314 (419373)
09-02-2007 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Rahvin
09-02-2007 1:58 PM


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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Rahvin, posted 09-02-2007 1:58 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Rahvin, posted 09-02-2007 2:11 PM Rob has responded

jar
Member
Posts: 33343
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 15 of 314 (419374)
09-02-2007 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Rob
09-02-2007 1:57 PM


Re: What is the relation?

So did the radiation and the water create the bacteria?

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?


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Rob, posted 09-02-2007 1:57 PM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Rob, posted 09-02-2007 2:09 PM jar has responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021