god is real prove me wrong (atheist beware)

Originally posted by amannion
Actually, there are some counter examples to this.
The chlorophyll cells that power photosythesis are not the most ideal cells that could do this process. Some analysis has shown them to be fairly inefficient and with some significant modification they would be much better at doing what they do.
So, has the intelligent creator said, 'stuff it, I can't be bothered making a better photosynthesizer - this'll do'?

Well yeah,

A really intelligent creator would have given us N fiixing wheat!

Originally posted by amannion
No, it isn't that I don't know what this 'greater thing' is. I know (or believe) that the universe exists as particles and energies. What I mean is that I have a sense of being a small part of something bigger. It's not unkown to me, just awe inspiring and, for me at least, I feel this as a spiritual connection with the universe.

i think i understand now. you are a part of the whole. this makes perfect sense. this keeps you from being too self-involved yet gives you comfort that you are A PART of something grander.

am i closer to understanding your position here?

Originally posted by amannion
No I wouldn't say mysterious - I'd prefer to use 'unexplained'.

fair enough

Originally posted by amannion
Actually, there are some counter examples to this.
The chlorophyll cells that power photosythesis are not the most ideal cells that could do this process. Some analysis has shown them to be fairly inefficient and with some significant modification they would be much better at doing what they do.
So, has the intelligent creator said, 'stuff it, I can't be bothered making a better photosynthesizer - this'll do'?

is there a way for photosynthesis to occur that would still produce the green colors found in the leaves?

sorry to appeal to the "pretty factor." but, perhaps the creator is creative as well.

Originally posted by Big Mac
is there a way for photosynthesis to occur that would still produce the green colors found in the leaves?

sorry to appeal to the "pretty factor." but, perhaps the creator is creative as well.

Well, according to evolutionary theory, green is only comforting to us because we spent so much of our evolutionary history around green things. Green represents food.

From a physiological perspective plants are green because of the amount of chlorophyll they contain. If they contained more chlorophyll, they'd be black. They aren't because the plant has evolved to minimise the carbon / nitrogen "cost" of producing chlorophyll, whilst maximising the amount of light harvested. The necessity for a light harvesting enzyme wouldn't change. Neither would the fact that most light isn't harvested, but instead goes straight through the leaf.

The biggest "problem" with photosynthesis is the ineffiency of the C-fixation process. The first problem the plant encounters is CO2 diffusion. Simply put, CO2 does not, most of the time, diffuse into the leaf quickly enough to saturate the carboxylating (CO2 fixing) exzyme, Rubisco. Secondly, diffusive resistances within the leaf exacerbate that problem, since O2 is produced in the chloroplast, leading to competition between CO2 and O2 for the Rubisco enzymatic site (Rubisco will fix both CO2 and O2). If Rubisco does fix O2, this leads to photorespiration, so the plant loses carbon. Also, and far worse from the plants point of view, photorespiration leads to the production of ammonia gas, which is a potential (and indeed, actual) loss of N for the plant. Since leaf photosynthesis scales linearly with N, this is a direct loss of future CO2 fixation.

These "problems" can be explained by the fact that Rubisco evolved in an atmosphere that was 21% CO2 and 0% oxygen. If Rubisco was produced by a divine creator, he;d have made it more efficient, both in terms of the aforementioned problems, and he'd have made it smaller (it is a huge protein, and due to it's catalytic inefficiency, is required in the leaf in huge quantities (~25% of leaf N)) and thus more efficient of resources.

[edit; a much better (at high light intensities) way of doing photosynthesis is by C4 plants (or CAM under drought), where CO2 is concentrated around Rubisco in special cells, called "bundle sheath cells" which are located close to the leaf veins (ready supply of water). CAM plants take up CO2 at night and store it as crassalacean acid (the CA in CAM, the M stands for metabolism). During the daytime, CAM plants release the CO2 into the leaf and fix it using Rubisco. Again, a divine creator would just make better Rubisco. The extra metabolism required for C4 and CAM is indicative of "tacked on" pathways, since the underlying chemistry is the same.]

Originally posted by amannion
So, has the intelligent creator said, 'stuff it, I can't be bothered making a better photosynthesizer - this'll do'?

Why would an intelligent creator have any interest in having a more efficient photosynthesizer? Why is more efficient 'better' than less efficient?
All life works in a particular way. Unless we know what the 'higher' purpose of it all is then we cannot determine whether or not it is working in the best or most intelligent way.
If the 'higher purpose' is mans happiness then one would think that much of life is a total waste and much of it is designed to detract from mans happiness.(disease etc).
Without knowledge of the purpose of something we cannot determine how well it is made. Thus we cannot determine whether or not the apparent poor design of something implies the abscence of a creator but merely the abscence of a creator with a specific purpose in mind.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Why would an intelligent creator have any interest in having a more efficient photosynthesizer? Why is more efficient 'better' than less efficient?
All life works in a particular way. Unless we know what the 'higher' purpose of it all is then we cannot determine whether or not it is working in the best or most intelligent way.
If the 'higher purpose' is ...[text shortened]... bscence of a creator but merely the abscence of a creator with a specific purpose in mind.

If you'd bothered to read the post I was replying to you'd see how this made sense. I'm not saying a creator should have made anything perfect, since I'm not saying there was a creator.

If you can't be bothered reading the posts, f*#k off and do something else ...

Originally posted by amannion
If you'd bothered to read the post I was replying to you'd see how this made sense. I'm not saying a creator should have made anything perfect, since I'm not saying there was a creator.

If you can't be bothered reading the posts, f*#k off and do something else ...

Actually I did read the post and I believe we are generally on the same side of the arguement.
However you stated that imperfection in something was a counter arguement. My point was that you made a judgement on what is perfection which is imposible.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually I did read the post and I believe we are generally on the same side of the arguement.
However you stated that imperfection in something was a counter arguement. My point was that you made a judgement on what is perfection which is imposible.

I think amannion was merely countering Big Mac's claim about the universe tending towards perfection - a very large overassumption. Amannion chose to point out that many system, in this case photosynthesis, are really pretty crap in the greater scheme of things. An omnipotent creator could make these things so much better, but apparently didn't, without any apparent reason. As I pointed out in my post, if we take evolutionary theory and the prevalent environmental conditions into account, this imperfection makes perfect sense.

Inperfection tells you nothing by itself, but coupled with the "more likely" explanation of evolution it does become a piece of evidence for evolution and against special creation.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
An omnipotent creator could make these things so much better, but apparently didn't, without any apparent reason.

Without any apparent reason? I think the world was created so much better, (if not perfect). I took a ID course once when I was younger, and for example, they showed evidence (petrified wood without any rings comes to my mind at the moment) of how there used to be a body of water surrounding the earth, which would make the earth a constant temperature even at the north pole, and would eliminate the need for it to rain and etc. I believe the earth was created a-lot better then it is now. Sin came, Satan took over this world, and the flood, changed it immensely.

Originally posted by flyUnity
Without any apparent reason? I think the world was created so much better, (if not perfect). I took a ID course once when I was younger, and for example, they showed evidence (petrified wood without any rings comes to my mind at the moment) of how there used to be a body of water surrounding the earth, which would make the earth a constant temperature even ...[text shortened]... etter then it is now. Sin came, Satan took over this world, and the flood, changed it immensely.

as fellow creationist and xian, i want to agree with you, but you provided no real evidence or warrant. please describe more of your learnings that ringless wood and the elimination of the need of rain. i hate to chastise you as a brother, but if we are to debate factually, and not spiritually for the time being, we must take each piece of evidence and look at empirically.

i am interested in more of what you have to say. i should think anyone is who is open to new possibilities of the way things occured.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually I did read the post and I believe we are generally on the same side of the arguement.
However you stated that imperfection in something was a counter arguement. My point was that you made a judgement on what is perfection which is imposible.

i too am a little confuse by your post. ammonion is arguing against the possibility of a "higher purpose." how can you be on the same side of the argument if you introduce a "higher purpose?"

i thought i was the xian here. 🙂

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Well, according to evolutionary theory, green is only comforting to us because we spent so much of our evolutionary history around green things. Green represents food.

From a physiological perspective plants are green because of the amount of chlorophyll they contain. If they contained more chlorophyll, they'd be black. They aren't becaus ...[text shortened]... indicative of "tacked on" pathways, since the underlying chemistry is the same.]

forgive for not replying earlier. i'm more of a philosopher (lover of knowledge, not necessarily owner of knowledge) than a scientist. i still have no rebuttal yet. i may not have one. i understand the terms you used, but i am rusty in my, is it atp cycle?, i don't remember. i will respond when able. thanks for your understanding and explanation of this. i have always loved science. i've just never gotten high marks in it.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
No, your senses may be decieving you. Without perfect knowledge you cannot rule that out.

since you are replying to a fellow believer, i hate to admit this, but...

good rebuttal. kudos to you.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
It was a compliment.

Thanks, I try to stay on topic, but when you've answered the same dumb question for the 12 billionth time you can get a bit tetchy sometimes, especially if it's to the same person (say, where is dj2becker?).

You shouldn't worry about asking me things on evolutionary theory, radiodating / fossils etc. I enjoy the challenge, an ...[text shortened]... sten, learn and grow. You seem to be one of those people, I hope the same can be said of me.

may i ask question now about a scientific problem i've heard of?

i have no available source for this, so please forgive me, but i've heard or read that the dating processes for artifacts and fossils are terribly inaccurate. a biology major friend of mine from university told of an experiment they did in a lab. they all carbon dated different things. he carbon dated a pencil, and it came back somewhere in the ballpark of being 10,000 years old. the pencil couldn't have been more that 2 years old. that a factor of 5000.

could you provide explanation or contradiction to this? thanks in advance.