DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Wonders of Nature
*****************************************************
#Post#: 9921--------------------------------------------------
Photosynthesis
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: June 15, 2018, 1:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200317134631.png
[center]A “textbook changing” new form of photosynthesis has
been discovered 🔬[/center]
LAST UPDATED ON JUNE 15TH, 2018 AT 10:14 AM BY ELENA MOTIVANS
For those of you who think that we know it all already, there’s
a new surprise. A recent discovery has shaken what know about
photosynthesis, an already well-studied topic. The “textbook
changer” is that a group of photosynthesizers exists that does
not need visible red light. This was thought to be impossible
because light below these wavelengths does not contain much
energy.
It is very well established that photosynthetic organisms use
visible red light for photosynthesis. The green pigment,
chlorophyll-a, is used to collect red light and use its energy
to make necessary biochemicals and oxygen. Chlorophyll-a is
found in pretty much every single photosynthetic organism, so we
thought that it sets an energy limit for photosynthesis. This
has been termed the “red limit” and was thought to signify the
minimum amount of energy required for the process of
photosynthesis.
One cyanobacterium, Acaryochloris, that lives in the shade of a
green sea squirt that blocks most visible light is known to use
near-infrared light.
[center]
HTML https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/sea-squirt-surprising-underwater-world-bali-basin-46671239.jpg[/center]
[center]Green Sea Squirts[/center]
It was considered an exception as it is a single species and
lives in an extremely specific habitat. Now, the researchers
have discovered that it isn’t just a one-off, but actually a
quite common lifestyle for cyanobacteria that live in shaded
areas. A few examples are found in bacterial mats in Yellowstone
Park and in Australian beach rock.
Go to article link for: Colony of cyanobacteria where magenta
represents chlorophyll-a driven photosynthesis and yellow
represents chlorophyll-f driven photosynthesis. Credit: Dennis
Nuernberg.
So how are these cyanobacteria able to survive if they can’t
power their chlorophyll-a? It turns out that chlorophyll-a shuts
down under these circumstances and lets its sidekick
chlorophyll-f take over. Previously, chlorophyll-f was thought
to just harvest light, now we know that it takes a starring role
under shaded conditions and can use infrared red light to
perform photosynthesis below the red limit. Plants that use this
photosynthesis type can also protect themselves from varying
brightness of light.
“The new form of photosynthesis made us rethink what we thought
was possible.
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130418202709.png<br
/>
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-250817121649.png<br
/>It also changes how we understand the key events at the heart
of
standard photosynthesis. This is textbook changing stuff,” said
lead researcher Professor Bill Rutherford, from the Department
of Life Sciences at Imperial College London.
Now we know of a third widespread type of photosynthesis. It is
only employed in special conditions, in infrared-rich shaded
conditions. When there is normal light, standard photosynthesis
is still the norm.
So what are the consequences of this discovery? The researchers
think that it could help to engineer more efficient crops that
can use a wider range of light. Another interesting implication
is that is could lower our standard, so to speak, to search for
life on other planets. Until now, the red limit is used in
astrobiology to determine whether complex life could have
evolved in other solar systems.
It’s pretty cool that there are major discoveries to be made on
topics that we think that we know well!
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130418202829.png
Journal reference: Dennis J. Nürnberg et al, Photochemistry
beyond the red limit in chlorophyll f–containing photosystems,
Science (2018). DOI: 10.1126/science.aar8313
HTML https://www.zmescience.com/research/discoveries/a-textbook-changing-new-form-of-photosynthesis-has-been-discovered/
HTML https://www.zmescience.com/research/discoveries/a-textbook-changing-new-form-of-photosynthesis-has-been-discovered/
Agelbert NOTE: It's not just "pretty cool"; it is evidence that
the energy required for life processes is NOT as cut and dried
as the "carrying capacity" crowd would have us believe. PLease
bear in mind that scientists thought this type of low energy
photosynthesis was so difficult and so unlikely, that they
actually tailored their search for life on other planets with a
WRONG ASSUMPTION. IOW, regardless of the nice way it is
presented in the above article, scientists thought it was
IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE of their rigid acceptance of the FLAWED laws
of thermodynamics MATH. Remember that the next time somebody
says you must have a minimum of X amount of energy to do this or
that. The cyanobacterium, Acaryochloris proves that, at least
for photosynthesis, you don't. If you think our scientists know
all there is to know about thermodynamics, you are wrong.
[center]
HTML https://streetdemocracy.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/945572_460379020720415_819738100_n.jpg
[/center]
[center]
HTML http://cutelovequotesforher.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Nikola-Tesla-Quotes-with-Photos.jpg[/center]
#Post#: 9925--------------------------------------------------
Re: Photosynthesis
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: June 16, 2018, 2:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Palloy2 link ---
>
> [quote]AG: It's not just "pretty cool"; it is evidence that
the energy required for life processes is NOT as cut and dried
as the "carrying capacity" crowd would have us believe. PLease
bear in mind that scientists thought this type of low energy
photosynthesis was so difficult and so unlikely, that they
actually tailored their search for life on other planets with a
WRONG ASSUMPTION. IOW, regardless of the nice way it is
presented in the above article, scientists thought it was
IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE of their rigid acceptance of the FLAWED laws
of thermodynamics MATH. Remember that the next time somebody
says you must have a minimum of X amount of energy to do this or
that. The cyanobacterium, Acaryochloris proves that, at least
for photosynthesis, you don't. If you think our scientists know
all there is to know about thermodynamics, you are wrong.
>
--- End Quote ---
Palloy's rush to defend the scientific priesthood in Palloy's
religion DELETED by Agelbert
[/quote]
Palloy never stops giving the ivory tower scientific community
the benefit of the doubt, while at the same time he wastes no
time in attacking absolutely anything I have posted that
questions the validity of the world view many of these
scientists have.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183337.bmp
Palloy is banned here for lacking the most elementary semblance
of logic and equanimity, which is often laced with snide remarks
and mocking. Pallloy HATES to have anything that forms part of
the "accepted", and often purely speculative, though pitched as
"scientific reality", assumptions by the scientific community,
questioned or discredited. Instead of just politely saying that
he disagrees with me, he goes on the attack. Therefore, it is a
waste of time to engage in debate with him.
It rarely happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really
good argument; my position is mistaken,' followed by actually
changing their minds so that you never hear that old view from
them again. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because
scientists are human and change is sometimes painful.
Their humanity is not what I question; what I find fault with is
their judgmental attitude towards anyone who questions their
theories. They point fingers at religious people for "rigidity"
and "irrationality" while failing to look in the mirror. They
ignore the judgemental scientific community history that
encompasses all the discredited visionary scientists (who
questioned a theory and were posthumously proven right) who had
careers destroyed by these ivory tower scientists claiming the
exclusive mantel of "objectivity". BULLSHIT!
Here are some examples of arguments used to defend "science"
that Evolution Theory defenders like Palloy often use, not just
to defend the thoroughly unscientific latest iteration of
Evolution Theory, MS (Modern Synthesis), but to defend the
rationale for not being "harshly judgemental" about past errors
in practically all areas of science (that were pitched, before
being found to be wrong, as scientific FACT, NOT speculation!).
As with Evolution Theory, anyone questioning some area of
science is typically accused of being "irrational",
"uncivilized" or "stupid". How rude. How convenient. How
sophistic. How skilled in fallacious debating techniques. How
thoroughly UNscientific.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-120716190938.png
--- Quote ---
> [center]This section examines various concerns evolutionists
often have regarding their theory’s false predictions.[/center]
>
> [center]Responses to common objections[/center]
>
> [size=10pt]These falsified predictions are not necessary
predictions of evolutionary theory. They merely reflect isolated
instances of a practitioner’s surprise over specific sets of
data.
>
> The predictions were considered to be necessary when they were
held. And they represented consensus evolutionary science at the
time they were held. They are well documented in both
peer-reviewed research papers, popular literature authored by
leading evolutionists and interviews of leading evolutionists.
They were not merely held by a few, individual evolutionists.
Nor were they one of several possible competing predictions.
That these predictions are not now considered to be necessary
predictions of evolution is a reflection of the malleability of
evolutionary theory and is a reminder of why a history of
evolution’s false predictions is important.
>
>
> False predictions often have led to productive research
>
> Productive research can come from a great variety of
scientific and nonscientific motivations, including false
predictions. That productive research may have arisen from some
of these predictions does not detract from the fact that they
are false.
>
>
>
> Evolutionists have fixed these false predictions
>
> A proponent of a theory, given sufficient motivation, can
explain all kinds of contradictory findings. (Quine) Typically,
however, there is a price to be paid as the theory becomes more
complex and has less explanatory power.
>
>
> Ad hominem and denial
>
> Criticism of evolution draws heated responses, and personal
attacks are common. Such attacks, however, do not change the
fact that evolution has generated many false predictions. Also,
evolutionists sometimes ignore or deny the unexpected findings.
They attempt to discredit the facts, referring to them as “tired
old arguments,” or fallacies without following up such
criticisms with supporting details.
>
>
> Falsificationism is flawed
>
> It has been argued that in order to qualify as science, ideas
and theories need to be falsifiable. Also, falsified predictions
are sometimes used to argue a theory is false. Such naïve
falsificationism is flawed (Popper) and not used here.
Evolution’s many false predictions do not demonstrate that
evolution is not science or that evolution is false.
>
> False predictions are valuable in judging the quality of a
theory, its explanatory power, and for improving our scientific
understanding in general. Nonetheless, evolutionists sometimes
reject any mention of their theory’s false predictions as mere
naïve falsificationism. The failures of naïve falsificationism
do not give evolutionists a license to ignore substantial and
fundamental failures of their theory.
>
>
> If there are so many problems evolution would have been
toppled
>
> This objection falls under the category of naïve
falsificationism. Science is a reactive process. New evidence is
processed, and theories are adjusted accordingly. But science
can also be a conservative process, sustaining substantial
problems before reevaluating a theory. Therefore the
reevaluation of a theory takes time. The fact that there are
problems is no guarantee a theory will have been toppled.
(Lakatos; Chalmers)
>
>
> Those quoted believe in evolution
>
> Many scientists doubt evolution, but they are not cited or
quoted in this paper. Only material from evolutionists is used
to illustrate that even adherents to the theory agree that the
predictions are false.
>
>
> These falsifications will be remedied in the future
>
> As scientists, we need to evaluate scientific theories
according to the currently available data. No one knows what
future data may bring, and the claim that future data will
rescue evolution is ultimately circular.
>
>
>
> There is no better alternative
>
> One way to evaluate a theory is to compare it to alternative
explanations. This approach has the advantage of circumventing
the difficulties in evaluating scientific theories. But of
course any such comparison will crucially depend on what
alternative explanations are used in the comparison. If care is
not taken good alternatives can be misrepresented or even
omitted altogether. And of course there may be alternatives not
yet conceived. (van Fraassen; Stanford) In any case, the success
or failure of evolution’s predictions depends on the science,
not on any alternative explanations.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 11956--------------------------------------------------
Re: Photosynthesis
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: April 1, 2019, 8:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]
HTML https://images.labroots.com/content_article_profile_image_30ee813a89549b2518110b5dafb57e09afab2420_712.jpg[/center]
[center]Huge phytoplankton bloom covers Southern Ocean
HTML https://www.labroots.com/trending/earth-and-the-environment/7485/huge-phytoplankton-bloom-covers-southern-ocean[/center]
[center]How Much Do Marine Plants Contribute to Earth’s Oxygen
Supply?[/center]
Although we typically think of jungles and rainforests such as
the Amazon as being the "lungs" of the planet, that's not
exactly true. Although we do owe much of the planet's oxygen to
trees and other land plants, at least half of the oxygen
actually comes from the oceans. A key component of ecosystems in
oceans, seas, and freshwater basins, the photosynthesizing
microorganisms known as phytoplankton contribute an estimated 50
to 85 percent of the oxygen in the Earth’s atmosphere. You’re
probably breathing oxygen right now that was produced by these
single-celled plants.
Tiny plants with a big role:
֍ The name "phytoplankton" comes from the Greek words
phyton (meaning plant) and planktos (meaning wanderer or
drifter).
֍ Phytoplankton are too small to be seen individually, but
in large numbers, they are noticeable as colored patches on the
water surface, appearing green because of the plant’s
chlorophyll content.
֍ Phytoplankton use energy from the sun to convert carbon
dioxide and nutrients into organic compounds, which form new
plant material and create oxygen in a process known as
photosynthesis.
HTML https://www.wisegeek.com/how-much-do-marine-plants-contribute-to-earths-oxygen-supply.htm
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/Ep5tcBXyFoE[/center]
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1