painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Too much oxygen will kill you faster than too little oxygen.
wa:do
wa:do
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Creationist objections to plant evolution?
- Thread starter mycorrhiza
- Start date
averageJOE
zombie
The sad part is that this actually makes sense to you.
johnhanks
Well-Known Member
Ever heard of a toxic algal bloom? Quite ugly, and distinctly polluting. You might also note that the most primitive kind of photosynthesis we know of uses hydrogen sulphide rather than water as its electron source and dumps sulphur instead of oxygen as its waste product. Was god just practising with that one?
As always, we can only be grateful that your opinion carries no weight on matters of scientific fact.
Perhaps he should have devoted a larger portion to it, given that photosynthesis is typically 1-2% efficient and at high temperatures prone to interference from photorespiration.
Last edited:
shawn001
Well-Known Member
"How God formed the Sun, Moon, and Earth "in the beginning" is not described in detail in the Bible."
No but it is in science very well. Its to bad you you haven't or don't study that when having this conversation.
From the orgins of the universe evolving to the sun and solar system and all life on it. We are observing other solar systems being born and evolving right now in our own galaxy.
Look up the word nucleosynthesis, without it the sun or earth or you wouldn't be here at all.
"The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff. Carl Sagan"
The process of humans becoming carbon based life forms started billions and billions of years ago, even our sun and planets are recyled material from earlier star explosions.
Scientific American
The Origin of Oxygen in Earth's Atmosphere
The breathable air we enjoy today originated from tiny organisms, although the details remain lost in geologic time
"So how did Earth end up with an atmosphere made up of roughly 21 percent of the stuff?
The answer is tiny organisms known as cyanobacteria, or blue-green algae. These microbes conduct photosynthesis: using sunshine, water and carbon dioxide to produce carbohydrates and, yes, oxygen. In fact, all the plants on Earth incorporate symbiotic cyanobacteria (known as chloroplasts) to do their photosynthesis for them down to this day.
For some untold eons prior to the evolution of these cyanobacteria, during the Archean eon, more primitive microbes lived the real old-fashioned way: anaerobically. These ancient organismsand their "extremophile" descendants todaythrived in the absence of oxygen, relying on sulfate for their energy needs.
The Origin of Oxygen in Earth's Atmosphere: Scientific American
Architects of earth's atmosphere
Cyanobacteria are aquatic and photosynthetic, that is, they live in the water, and can manufacture their own food. Because they are bacteria, they are quite small and usually unicellular, though they often grow in colonies large enough to see. They have the distinction of being the oldest known fossils, more than 3.5 billion years old, in fact! It may surprise you then to know that the cyanobacteria are still around; they are one of the largest and most important groups of bacteria on earth.
Introduction to the Cyanobacteria
Introduction to the Cyanobacteria
Early 'see-sawing' Earth experienced hazy shades of life
" Earth's early atmosphere fluctuated between 'organic haze' and a 'haze-free' environment similar to that of Saturn's moon, Titan, a new study has revealed.
And this switch over 2.5 billion years ago was the result of intense microbial activity and would have had a profound effect on the climate of the Earth system.
Research, led by experts at Newcastle University, UK, revealed that the Earth's early atmosphere periodically flipped from a hydrocarbon-free state into a hydrocarbon-rich state."
Hazy shades of life on early Earth
Can you breath Methane, or primarily natural gas?
Your breathing Oxygen right now because the bacteria called cynobacteria evolved photosynthesis and changed the earth atmophere. Our atmophere today is a direct result of evolution. Look it up.
Let me summarize the arguments I am hearing from the evolutionists. Somehow, the oxygen/carbon dioxide cycle necessary for life is actually an accidental pollution.
Photosynthesis, also necessary for life, is also accidental and "inefficient". A piece of wood with a name carved into it implies design, but an eye that cannot be duplicated by modern science just developed all by itself. I am reminded of Psalm 10:4: "The wicked one according to his superciliousness [literally,"according to the height of his nose"] makes no search; all his ideas are: "There is no God."
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Wow. I didn't know it was possible to condense so many logical fallacies and outright dishonesties into two paragraphs.
I agree. Evolution is fallacious and outright dishonest.
Ahh, aren't you just the cutest little thing. :curtsy:
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
opcorn:....rusra's at it again....
mycorrhiza
Well-Known Member
Since there's 200-400 billion stars in our galaxy and countless amounts of galaxies (scientists are estamating at least 170 billion), some much larger than ours, I would say that it's quite likely that on a single planet around a single star, the necessary things happened for life to begin. There's probably life much more complex than ours on other planets, maybe even in our galaxy.
There was carbon dioxide before the animals, so the cycle is quite natural and expected. Yes, photosynthesis is probably accidental, and it is quite inefficient.
A piece of wood with a carved name implies design because language is a known human construction. The eye is well understood by science, and it's evolutionary path is well recorded. What makes you think that we cannot recreate eyes?
I would say that it is rather the creationists that perform no (re)search and instead completely reject all evidence that doesn't fit their world view.
camanintx
Well-Known Member
Are you ever going to address the inconsistency in Genesis between seeded plants and animals?
johnhanks
Well-Known Member
I have already explained that photosynthesis can exist without releasing oxygen; for contemporary anaerobes at the time water-splitting photosynthesis evolved, oxygen was most certainly polluting, and the cytochromes currently used in oxidative phosphorylation probably developed initially as a way of 'mopping up' that corrosive gas. Do not confuse "necessary for life" with "necessary for aerobes".
Spot on. Not sure why you put "inefficient" in quotes though - or do you think 1-2% represents impressive efficiency?
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
I don't think it would ever occur to him that there is life still existing today that can't survive in an oxygen atmosphere. The very concept of anaerobic is utterly inconceivable to him, which is why he "doesn't get it".
I predict that he will simply dismiss this strange knowledge that "doesn't make sense" to him rather than consider it and risk having to ask any questions about what his preachers have been telling him.
wa:do
I predict that he will simply dismiss this strange knowledge that "doesn't make sense" to him rather than consider it and risk having to ask any questions about what his preachers have been telling him.
wa:do
Right, so photosynthesis occurred accidentally. How, exactly, did that happen?
As to efficiency, I am amazed that people who cannot fully understand a process such as photosynthesis have the temerity to dub it 'inefficient'. As with so many other processes only dimly understood by science, a little more humility is in order, but not expected.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
I suppose you "fully understand" the process of photosynthesis... which is why you are so quick demand humility from us plebeians.
:beach:
wa:do
I had to chuckle at the "dimly understood by science" comment though... that's rich. It's so poorly understood I'm amazed that I was required to memorize how it works down to the electron.
Last edited:
mycorrhiza
Well-Known Member
We don't know exactly how it first got started. It was nearly 3,5 billion years ago, so it's quite difficult to study the early genetics of it.
The process itself is, however, fully understood and it is inefficient. From where did you get that it is only "dimly understood" by scientists?
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Question:
Why is photosynthesis "inefficient"?
I thought this was and efficient means of survival for plants and many other organisms..
Thanks...
EDIT:
Wait a minute. I think I get it now.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthetic_efficiency
Last edited:
johnhanks
Well-Known Member
A disingenuous question. Not in one step, certainly, and not initially in the form we most commonly see today. Nothing occurs in photosynthesis that runs counter to the laws of chemistry, so no magic need be invoked to explain its origin.
As amazed, perhaps, as I am that there are people who cannot distinguish between an empirical measurement ("photosynthesis has an efficiency of 1-2%") and a value judgment.
As usual, you miss the point. At 1-2% efficiency photosynthesis still supports most of the biosphere, and professional biologists probably appreciate its capabilities more than you do; but that level of efficiency sits ill with your earlier raptures about how magical and obviously god-given it is.
Zoe Doidge
Basically a Goddess
We do not know exactly how photosynthesis evolved, but it appeared long before plants themselves did. Cyanobacteria capable of the process have been dated back to around 3400 Ma (in fact I seem to recall some evidence suggesting as far back as 3700 Ma).
It is not particularly complex. It is a reaction that can be described as:
H2O + CO2 + light energy → CH2O + O2
The efficiency of which is determined by how much light energy is converted into biomass. As already stated, this tends to be 2% max, although sugarcane can get up to 8%, which is fairly close to the maximum [FONT="]theoretically [/FONT]possible.