Creationist objections to plant evolution?

[mycorrhiza]

Question:

Why is photosynthesis "inefficient"?

I thought this was and efficient means of survival for plants and many other organisms..

Thanks...

It is enough for plants to survive, but it only has an efficiency of 0,1-8%. A lot of the energy is lost on the way, for example because the plants can't absorb it (they can only absorb a small range of sunlight).

Photosynthetic efficiency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Edit: And I see now that you found the very same article I linked

 

[painted wolf]

It's inefficient because it only uses a tiny fraction of the available solar spectrum... and that fraction is not the most energetically active. Plus the conversion process from solar energy to chemical energy is very inefficient in that it only manages to convert a small percentage way less than 10% to biomass.

This is why trees need so many leaves despite being more than 90% dead material.

Photosynthetic efficiency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

wa:do

LoL.... scooped!

 

[rusra02]

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?

If you don't know exactly how it first got started, how can you dub it an accident? The book Life Processes of Plants states: "Photosynthesis is a remarkable, highly regulated process for harnessing the energy of the sun's photons." The book speaks about the "complex architecture of the plant and the incredibly intricate biochemical and genetic controls that regulate photosynthetic activity." And yet are we to accept the evolutionist idea that complex architecture and intricate controls, and self-regulating, self-maintaining, submicroscopic machines that operate at thousands, or even millions of cycles per second, without noise, pollution, or ugliness, turning light into sugar, just happened? (quotes from g97 1/22 pp18-22)

If it were fully understood, why haven't we built plants to produce...plants? And more efficiently?

​

 

[tumbleweed41]

If it were fully understood, why haven't we built plants to produce...plants? And more efficiently?

Conversely, why did God design them to be so inefficient?

 

[mycorrhiza]

If you don't know exactly how it first got started, how can you dub it an accident? The book Life Processes of Plants states: "Photosynthesis is a remarkable, highly regulated process for harnessing the energy of the sun's photons." The book speaks about the "complex architecture of the plant and the incredibly intricate biochemical and genetic controls that regulate photosynthetic activity." And yet are we to accept the evolutionist idea that complex architecture and intricate controls, and self-regulating, self-maintaining, submicroscopic machines that operate at thousands, or even millions of cycles per second, without noise, pollution, or ugliness, turning light into sugar, just happened? (quotes from g97 1/22 pp18-22)

If it were fully understood, why haven't we built plants to produce...plants? And more efficiently?

Because there is nothing pointing towards design, at all. If everything else is selection, mutation and environmental influence, why should photosynthesis be different? Everything needed for photosynthesis to arise was present, so there is no need for design either. While we can't know 100% if it was "an accident", all evidence points towards it.

Yes, many modern plants are quite complex, but the early plants and the earliest photosynthetic organism weren't complex at all.

Why build plants to produce plants? Would you expect humanity to be able to recreate something that originally took millions or billions of years? We have created synthetic photosynthesis though and we have modified plants to be more effective in their photosynthesis.

And it still doesn't turn light into sugar. Light is just one part of the process, and as we explained, oxygen is pollution. What are the "submicroscopic machines" you are talking about?

 

[Zoe Doidge]

If you don't know exactly how it first got started, how can you dub it an accident?

Nobody has said it was an accident other than you.

The book Life Processes of Plants states: "Photosynthesis is a remarkable, highly regulated process for harnessing the energy of the sun's photons." The book speaks about the "complex architecture of the plant and the incredibly intricate biochemical and genetic controls that regulate photosynthetic activity." And yet are we to accept the evolutionist idea that complex architecture and intricate controls, and self-regulating, self-maintaining, submicroscopic machines that operate at thousands, or even millions of cycles per second, without noise, pollution, or ugliness, turning light into sugar, just happened? (quotes from g97 1/22 pp18-22)

Evolution will do that over time yes. Natural selection will tend to favour the characteristics you mentioned because it gives the organisms that have them a significant advantage over those that don’t.

And it didn’t ‘just happen’. As I said before photosynthesis was originally in cyanobacteria, and much more primitive.

If it were fully understood, why haven't we built plants to produce...plants? And more efficiently?

We have a plentiful supply of sugar, and since plants already exist we have no real need to put the time and effort into building one from scratch. Of course, we do genetically engineer various plants to improve them.

That said, we do utilise the concept of using sunlight to produce energy in the form of solar panels. In terms of efficiency, they’re considerably better than any plants.

 

[dust1n]

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.

The oxygen/carbon dioxide, as you call it, isn't necessary for life.

Photosynthesis, also necessary for life, is also accidental and "inefficient".

There is actually three different kinds of photosynthesis, some more "inefficient" than others, depending on your environment.

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."

The silly one, according to his superstition, makes no search; all his ideas must conform to that of an ancient book.

 

[rusra02]

Conversely, why did God design them to be so inefficient?

So often, what is dubbed inefficient or poor design by evolutionists turns out to be (woeful) lack of complete knowledge on their part. For example, so-called "junk DNA" or the claim that the human eye is poorly designed. When men stop polluting the earth with noisy, dirty factories producing shoddy goods that break down after only a few years usage, stop ruining the earth, sea, land, and air with death-dealing chemicals, stop destroying the natural environment, stop misusing earth's resources for warfare, perhaps their criticism of photosynthesis would bear more weight, though I doubt it.
Earth's plants produce hundreds of billions of tons of sugar every year, without pollution, noise, or garbage needing disposal. I believe it is as Ecclesiastes 3:14 declares: "Everything that the true God makes, it will prove to be to time indefinite. To it there is nothing to add and from it there is nothing to subtract; but the true God himself has made it, that people may be afraid on account of him."

​

​

 

[mycorrhiza]

So often, what is dubbed inefficient or poor design by evolutionists turns out to be (woeful) lack of complete knowledge on their part. For example, so-called "junk DNA" or the claim that the human eye is poorly designed. When men stop polluting the earth with noisy, dirty factories producing shoddy goods that break down after only a few years usage, stop ruining the earth, sea, land, and air with death-dealing chemicals, stop destroying the natural environment, stop misusing earth's resources for warfare, perhaps their criticism of photosynthesis would bear more weight, though I doubt it.
Earth's plants produce hundreds of billions of tons of sugar every year, without pollution, noise, or garbage needing disposal. I believe it is as Ecclesiastes 3:14 declares: "Everything that the true God makes, it will prove to be to time indefinite. To it there is nothing to add and from it there is nothing to subtract; but the true God himself has made it, that people may be afraid on account of him."

You don't think that botanists have an understanding of photosynthesis? Just because humans pollute and wage war doesn't mean that we aren't capable of understanding photosynthesis. The two things are completely unrelated.

As we explained before: Photosynthesis does bring pollution, called oxygen.

 

[painted wolf]

So often, what is dubbed inefficient or poor design by evolutionists turns out to be (woeful) lack of complete knowledge on their part. For example, so-called "junk DNA" or the claim that the human eye is poorly designed. When men stop polluting the earth with noisy, dirty factories producing shoddy goods that break down after only a few years usage, stop ruining the earth, sea, land, and air with death-dealing chemicals, stop destroying the natural environment, stop misusing earth's resources for warfare, perhaps their criticism of photosynthesis would bear more weight, though I doubt it.
Earth's plants produce hundreds of billions of tons of sugar every year, without pollution, noise, or garbage needing disposal. I believe it is as Ecclesiastes 3:14 declares: "Everything that the true God makes, it will prove to be to time indefinite. To it there is nothing to add and from it there is nothing to subtract; but the true God himself has made it, that people may be afraid on account of him."

I guess the "true god" didn't make dinosaurs, trilobites or woolly mammoths then.... must have been some other god. They got subtracted pretty hard.

wa:do

 

[johnhanks]

So often, what is dubbed inefficient or poor design by evolutionists turns out to be (woeful) lack of complete knowledge on their part. For example, so-called "junk DNA" or the claim that the human eye is poorly designed.

Eyes work, certainly, but their 'design' is sub-optimal. An intelligent designer needn't have built in a blind spot or covered the photosensitive cells with layers of others. Nor, elsewhere, would an intelligent designer choose to put two opposite curves into a vertebral column to make it vertical; evolution, on the other hand, starting with a backbone with one curve built in, had, as it were, no choice but to even it out with an opposing one. Ask any back pain sufferer how optimal the result was.

When men stop polluting the earth with noisy, dirty factories producing shoddy goods that break down after only a few years usage, stop ruining the earth, sea, land, and air with death-dealing chemicals, stop destroying the natural environment, stop misusing earth's resources for warfare, perhaps their criticism of photosynthesis would bear more weight, though I doubt it.

Once again, you seem unable to distinguish between an objective statement of fact about photosynthesis (it is typically 1-2% efficient) and a value judgment on it. The process does a good job for its practitioners; but 1-2% efficiency jars with all your raptures about how divine and perfect it is.

 

[mycorrhiza]

No more evidence against plant evolution? If there actually is some, it would be nice to see at as being proved wrong is to make progress.

I was quite enjoying the debate.

 

[rusra02]

No more evidence against plant evolution? If there actually is some, it would be nice to see at as being proved wrong is to make progress.

I was quite enjoying the debate.

There isn't evidence against the tooth fairy, but I wouldn't stake my life on the veracity of the TF. There is no evidence plants evolved, and I believe plenty that can be observed in the plants themselves that displays evidence of brilliant design and engineering skills, skills that cannot be duplicated by the most intelligent of humans; skills that can be observed and studied by anyone with eyes to see and a heart to understand. (Jeremiah 5:21)

​

​

 

[mycorrhiza]

There isn't evidence against the tooth fairy, but I wouldn't stake my life on the veracity of the TF. There is no evidence plants evolved, and I believe plenty that can be observed in the plants themselves that displays evidence of brilliant design and engineering skills, skills that cannot be duplicated by the most intelligent of humans; skills that can be observed and studied by anyone with eyes to see and a heart to understand. (Jeremiah 5:21)

Ok, I will rephrase it: "Evidence that plants were created". There is plenty of evidence that plants evolved, just look through the thread. If there are specifics you oppose, then please do tell and we will try to explain or argue.

Why do you expect humanity to be able to recreate everything? We're just apes, and science generally agrees with that view. Even though we're technologically advanced, modern science hasn't progressed very far yet. I expect that in a hundred or so years we will be able to create life.

What about plants is an indication of design? What parts can't we reproduce? We've already reproduced photosynthesis, and that's one of the most complicated parts of the plant life.

 

[painted wolf]

You just have to realize that whenever rusra says "there is no evidence" he means that he is doing this: :ignore:
And nothing you say will matter because he will just keep repeating this mantra.

wa:do

 

[averageJOE]

Ok, I will rephrase it: "Evidence that plants were created". There is plenty of evidence that plants evolved, just look through the thread. If there are specifics you oppose, then please do tell and we will try to explain or argue.

Why do you expect humanity to be able to recreate everything? We're just apes, and science generally agrees with that view. Even though we're technologically advanced, modern science hasn't progressed very far yet. I expect that in a hundred or so years we will be able to create life.

What about plants is an indication of design? What parts can't we reproduce? We've already reproduced photosynthesis, and that's one of the most complicated parts of the plant life.

I agree with your post here. But I just wanted to comment on the underlined portion. I don't think it will take that long. With the science of nanotecnology making its advancements I would think it we will be able to create life in about 50 years.

 

[rusra02]

Ok, I will rephrase it: "Evidence that plants were created". There is plenty of evidence that plants evolved, just look through the thread. If there are specifics you oppose, then please do tell and we will try to explain or argue.

Why do you expect humanity to be able to recreate everything? We're just apes, and science generally agrees with that view. Even though we're technologically advanced, modern science hasn't progressed very far yet. I expect that in a hundred or so years we will be able to create life.

What about plants is an indication of design? What parts can't we reproduce? We've already reproduced photosynthesis, and that's one of the most complicated parts of the plant life.

What about plants is an indication of design? Uh...photosynthesis. Is it your claim that men have reproduced creation of sugar from sunlight, with only oxygen as the by-product of this process? And that men have thus solved the problem of world hunger?

 

[dust1n]

What about plants is an indication of design? Uh...photosynthesis. Is it your claim that men have reproduced creation of sugar from sunlight, with only oxygen as the by-product of this process? And that men have thus solved the problem of world hunger?

Oxygen isn't the only by-product of photosynthesis. :areyoucra



Um.... glucose?

And here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_photosynthesis

 

[dust1n]

You just have to realize that whenever rusra says "there is no evidence" he means that he is doing this: :ignore:
And nothing you say will matter because he will just keep repeating this mantra.

wa:do

No kidding.

I'm still waiting to hear how angiosperms exist now but didn't seven hundred thousand years ago, without a complete misrepresentation of the first few verses of the Bible. :sleep:

 

[rusra02]

You just have to realize that whenever rusra says "there is no evidence" he means that he is doing this: :ignore:
And nothing you say will matter because he will just keep repeating this mantra.

wa:do

Ridicule is a weak argument.