ATP Production (Intelligent Design)

Portion of lecture by a creationist scientist describing mechanisms in human body producing ATP which is known as the currency of life.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• ATP
• Intelligent
• Design
• Creation
• Science

[smartiesblizzard]

Why is it that every creationist video that points to the ATPase enzyme tries to claim that "life cannot exist without this complex machine" ? Only organisms that undergo oxidative phosphorylation depend on these enzymes. There are many other pathways that have evolved to harness chemical/electrical energy and convert them into useable cellular energy such as ATP (glycolysis anyone?). The world is complex; that doesn't mean we have to resort to intelligent design to explain it.

[grfield1]

@smartiesblizzard We are talking about complex life like mammals. The processes u r referring to occur in typically single cell life....which ultimately is also very complex but not so much as multi-cellular life. That's why.

[smartiesblizzard]

@grfield1 Irrelevant. The argument here is that life could not have arisen without the presence of ATPase, which is untrue. Yes, mammalian life is more complex than unicellular life, but that's not the point. Life itself began as cellular precursors, which became early anaerobes that did not require ATPase enzymes, which then evolved into more complex organisms (along with ATPase) over a very long period of time. If you have evidence to refute that, fill me in. 

[grfield1]

@smartiesblizzard it is totally relevant. Also your paradigm includes a wide array of assumptions.

[narCONonExposed]

"Read what they wrote and see how wrong you are."

Creationists cannot learn. The "Eve" mDNA sequencing shows the exact opposite of what this silly Creationist claims---- which is why he is a Creationist. He will *NEVER* educate himself on the subject because he believes ignorance is his salvation.

[ThatOneQ]

"Nope...can't prove it...but it is evidence."

Not until you can site the actual study itself.

Can you tell me who did the study and when?

I am already aware of several projects like the one you mentioned, but your conclusion is wrong.

Pick one and lets examine it to see how you misread it.

[smartiesblizzard]

@grfield1 Fair enough, there are a lot of assumptions. However, the difference is that most of the assumptions are supported by empirical research. Intelligent design is a paradigm wherein empirical support is near-impossible, making it an unproductive (and unscientific) paradigm. Trust me, if I'd ever heard a compelling, supported argument for the idea of intelligent design, I would love to believe in a "creator."

[grfield1]

@tolteko your english is fine. There are many and I agree I dont want priests teaching science either. The dating methods they have are the ones they use despite the obvious problems. Radio Polonium halos refute billions of years. So do polystratic fossils. They are just considered anomalies without explanation. Read about what happened after the Mount sT Helens eruption. John Sanford is a scientist and Stephen Meyer is a double PHD.

[tolteko]

@grfield1 more like who? Like Behe? And then who? Nobody else. The list of scientists that assume the Evo as a fact is too long to be written here. Dating methods are not questionable, people like you think so, because geologist that use the dating method every day, aren't questioning anything. We don't need priests that tell us what to do in our labs, no more. Accept it. Sorry for my english, I'm not from an english speaking country.

[grfield1]

@tolteko I gave one example there r many more. Sanford was like u at one time and the evidence made him change his mind. Fossils do not mean anything in regards to the age of the earth. Dating methods r questionable and u should be aware of all of that. There are anomalies in dating methods that evos go to great lengths to invent theories to explain. Genetics has the large segment of scientists questioning the just how limited evo and natural selection are.

[tolteko]

@grfield1 well, "many" does not mean one, am I right? I know Sanford's work, and, despite his great career, he started to select only the few facts that seem to agree with the "young earth" theory, which is de facto wrong (why are there fossils?). I don't get why christians try to go back to science, we aren't in the middle ages, we can't go back. I respect one's beliefs, but they must stay in metaphysic field. When something is real, only scientific method can investigate.

[grfield1]

@tolteko Despite claims to the contrary there are many scientists who are also creationists, although not all people who believe in God are literal creationists. Check out some info by geneticist John Sanford who wrote a book recently called Genetic Entropy. Present rates of genetic decay in all forms of life show that life will not survive more than 30K more years. If you reverse the clock on present rates you go back to a state of no decay about 6\K years. He is fully accredited

[tolteko]

LOL you used the words "creationist" and "scientist" in the same sentence!

[grfield1]

@ladi3ch3la How deep do u want to go. Two compounds enter the celluar motor, ATD and P1....the end product comes out as ATP. If I have it right it breaks off some electrons from the original molecules and them adds certain others. The end product. ATP is essential to life. It is called the currency of life.

[ladi3ch3la]

Uum hopefully someone can help me with this question but m trying o figure it out umm... how does living cell produce ATP? im trying to get it but i cant :/

[grfield1]

@uru39 Really ...studies show!. Common design is not proof of common ancestry. It is evidence of a common designer.

[grfield1]

@ntt688 It is true that things are changing and mutating etc...and adapting. But this is all the result of information that is already present within the genome. natural selection usually eliminates organisms. It can not produce life.

[grfield1]

@lina9399 When they dont agree they attack the man.

[lina9399]

Funny how people take sides when this scientist is clearly being amazed at his creator's creation! For him this is the only explanation, so chill. Humanity strives to have a reason to everything, how and why things are there. I am sorry for those that don't believe in God because you do believe in something else called Nature/evolution. So far no one has discretely defined nature/evolution, there is always exception. just because you cant perceive the creator, it doesn't mean that he not there

[uru39]

studies show that flagellum have been through a process of evolution, starting off simple and gaining complex designs each time. the simple designs still exist in some simple prokaryotic bacteria today.

[grfield1]

@AevumAnimus Cant u admit that if something looks designed it might be because it is designed. I dont present things things as proof they are evidence from the data. God or TOE cannot be proved

[AevumAnimus]

When you design something you make it so it works, so what works is what things that are designed look like. So how is what works for long periods of time (life) looking like what is designed proof of anything? And if I was an intelligent designer, I'd design a universe where chance occurrences (which of course aren't really chance if I'm designing it ) lead to the emergence of complex systems like life through an elegant and simple set of laws and a beautiful multimillion year process.

[rotaryphoton137]

Giraffes were used as battle mounts in large scale battles against elephant riders. They used silhouette mesh to make everything in front of the giraffe to look like giant leaves thus causing the giraffe to charge at everything. The riders used giant elongated lances to skewer elephant riders and thus if the planet was a super heated mass how could life evolve on magma? Unless it was deposited. Who made who? Who made you?

[grfield1]

@Achiox According to TOE all living things are related...we are all inbred...according to creationists all living things have a common creator.