PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     For a Creationist Biologist
       Evolutionary flaws of Rubisco

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
joeferrari15

|       |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

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 it does for carbon dioxide, thus causing the problem of photorespiration.

(Edited by joeferrari15 11/3/2006 at 11:13 PM).
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 9:24 PM on November 3, 2006 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What is the creationist reason for rubisco's flaw?


What are you kidding me?!!!


Most creationists that I come across are biblical literalists who feel that any information that God allows nature to reveal to humans contradicting their interpretation of the bible is either a lie propogated by Satan or propoganda revealed by a conspiracy involving secular scientists as well as every religious based university in the United States that has an acredited science department.  Included in this nefarious cabal are such esteemed Christian-based Universities as Notre Dame, Holy Cross, Baylor, Georgetown, and SMU. The fact that in most cases the creationists base their biblical arguments on  English translations of Greek, Latin and Hebrew texts that were cobbled together by Roman Catholic politicians in the 3rd and 4th centuries is usually lost on the creationists (or at best clumsily dismissed).

Creationists cannot defend their views with science so their strategy is to debunk evolutionary theory by taking pot-shots at it.  Creationists  like to shamelessy trot out tired and thoroughly-debunked  arguments like "radiometric dating is unreliable". They base their arguments on something they  "read" somewhere that decribes how a certain type of radiometric dating produces false readings in special circumstances like when the rocks in question are only twenty to thirty years old.  The creationists then try to erroneously conclude that this brings in to question all the dating methods used for all types of rocks.  When I try to explain that there are over 40 different types of radiometric dating methods in use (not to mention all the non-radiometric methods) and that scientists rountinely use several methods to cross-check their dating,  the creationists usually bring up a non-sequitor like "what about Mt. St. Helens?".
Of course, when I challenge creationists to produce just one dinosaur bone or ancient mollusc shell that has been incorrectly dated without being challenged by the scientific community, they ALWAYS produce bupkis.

Creationists are for the most part naive dupes who are being flim-flammed by sleezy con-men who use the money gained from "preaching the Gospel" to fund and propogate such righteous causes  like the activities of gay, male prostitutes and crystal-meth dealers.
 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 09:55 AM on November 7, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Creationists are for the most part naive dupes who are being flim-flammed by sleezy con-men who use the money gained from "preaching the Gospel" to fund and propogate such righteous causes  like the activities of gay, male prostitutes and crystal-meth dealers.

 


First of all, I still can't figure out what the end of the sentence was supposed to mean.  Second of all, the average Christian preacher makes what would be considered a poverty level income and has to work a second job (or three) on the side.  He must be in it for the money...  


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 10:04 AM on November 7, 2006 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

First of all, I still can't figure out what the end of the sentence was supposed to mean.

Google "ted haggard"
Second of all, the average Christian preacher makes what would be considered a poverty level income and has to work a second job (or three) on the side.  He must be in it for the money...  


Sorry for the confusion.  When I use the term "creationist" I am refering to both the  con-men, who while pretending to be "christian" use deceitful tactics to create confusion in the minds of their mostly well-meaning but naive followers as well as the followers themselves.
I have no problem with people who want to believe in explanations that are not scientific.  But  I do have issues with any individuals who use lies to forward their claims or discredit the claims of others as well as pity for the poor souls who innocently latch on to the lies.  With these last points in mind, I would say that while many Christian pastors may choose to believe in an interpretation of the bible that does not also allow them to accept the theory of evolution as a scientific "truth", this fact alone does not necessarily make them a "creationist" according to the definitions that I generaly use in creo/evo debates.

(Edited by fredguff 11/7/2006 at 1:22 PM).
 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 11:20 AM on November 7, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Google "ted haggard"


I hardly put any credit in a guy who doesn't even know the difference between a pastor and a preacher.  Any student of biblical studies will tell you that the term pastor refers to an elder, which ted haggard is not.  He is a minister.  I also have no respect for anyone who puts Reverand in front of their name.  Exactly why do they think we should revere them?  Now, a preacher, or minister, this I can at least understand.  Yes, this man is a disgrace.  Why is it when people use their influence and deceit in a non-religious framework, they are simply recognized for what they are (doesn't matter the job, lawyer, politician, doctor, heck your local sanitation engineer can all be one way to your face and another behind your back and other than getting upset about it, people realize that it's just the way this person is and learn not to trust him anymore), but when it's a person who purports to be a Christian, then all of a sudden it's proof that ALL Christians are hypocrites and nothing they say can be believed.  Ted Haggard is hardly the face of the Church of Christ (which can be found all the way back in Romans 16:16), but of this so called New Life Church which he started.  I'm not saying Christians don't make mistakes, but don't lump Haggard or any of the denominations in with us.  Hadn't even heard of the guy until last week.  


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 8:00 PM on November 7, 2006 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ed,

There are several points that I always try to drive home in these creo/evo debates.  Hopefully my list will clarify these points and give you a clearer picture of where I stand.

1.  Creationists who claim to be Christian are not by default Christian and Christians are not by default creationists.

2.  I have no problems with individuals who believe in literal interpretations of English translations of either of the two creation stories written in Genesis.  Nor do I have a problem with individuals who attempt to fit their interpretations in to the accepted parameters allowed by main-stream science.  I DO have problems with individuals and groups that use dishonest tactics and false logic to forward their claims.  Sadly many creationists fall into the latter category.

3. I have absolutely no problems with "good" people.  Some good people that I have meant happen to also be Christians.  Many of these "good" Christians that I have meant believe that the reason they are "good" is a result of their faith in Christianity as well as the guidance they receive from going to church and reading the bible.  In cases like this, I am actually glad they are Christian.

4. I can't stand people who call attention to themselves by flaunting their Christianity.  From my experiences in life it always seems like these types of "Christians" turn out to be the liars and hypocrites.  Sadly it seems like a lot of the "creationists" fall into this category.

5.  I have no problem with individuals who bring up reasonable questions regarding the theory of evolution or any other theory that I believe to be true.  Nor do I have a problem with individuals whose ideas and opinions differ from mine.  You for instance have set me straight on certain things (like mothers having DNA readings that rule out maternal connections to babies they clearly gave birth to) and for that I am thankful.  I do have problems with people who forward false information and bad logic to attack theories or opinions--even when it involves theories or beliefs that I do not believe to be true.

I hope this helps

 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 12:15 PM on November 8, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Like the song says, "Would Jesus wear a Rolex on his television show?".

Fair enough.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 9:37 PM on November 8, 2006 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.