Order of creation

[Ragna]

Go ahead and create one.

Let's debate the order of creation. I made a claim:

I say that Genesis, by itself, is not reliable, independently of which scientific theory is true. It's a mythical book, it has to be checked externally to see if it has some bearing on reality or none. Disproving evolution is not such a check, since aliens could be manipulating mutations via remote control and there could very well be no god in this scenario. Also, all of our modern science has disproved most of the creation myth (there's no water above the sky, the stars came first, then Sun then Earth, etc.).

Shermana claims that Genesis is in fact accurate because cyanobacteria cannot survive without an ozone layer. In her own words:

Well if you're not gonna debate Cyanobacteria, then kindly retract your claim that Genesis would be 0% reliable. Say that it's possibly reliable involving the order of plants first, sun second.

Are you aware that Genesis states plants first, sun second? That might clear up the confusion.

None of these arguments are non-sequitur.

It's just that when facts and evidence are presented that prove the countrary wrong, the goalposts get changed every time it seems.

Basically, there could be no such thing as plants before an ozone layer. Impossible.

Thus, Genesis Creationism is by default correct.

That would be evidence of "God".

If you don't accept this argument as valid, that's your problem.

Questions for debate:

1. Is this argument valid, constituting evidence?

2. Which came first, plants or the Sun?

3. Can cyanobacteria survive without an ozone layer?

4. Does this prove Genesis being accurate?

[100%atheist]

If you demand proof that Earth formed before its star, do you demand proof that the Solar System formed on its own in the face of Entropy? Do you demand proof of the Sun being the origin of say....Jupiter? Where does all this Hydrogen and Helium come from even? Do you just accept that what's in the Nebula always existed without a cause?

Here I doubt you comprehend what you are talking about.
First (and last) of all, our solar system, including the sun and planets, has been formed (at least in part) out of "leftovers" of a supernova explosion.

I could probably explain, but I am not sure about your preparation background. Have you read Stephen Hawking's books? He actually explains much better than I will ever be able to explain to lay people.

[Shermana]

Also, Plants supposedly originate from Cyanobacteria, thus even though one is a...bacteria, the point being is that they both have the same photosynthetic properties, and plants are supposedly of Algae origin. Hope that clears up, Blue Green Algae in layman's terms, I call it a "plant" in regards to the overall Genesis creation story. To get technical, it is not a "plant" in Botanical terms.

So you admit that the authors of Genesis were kind of stupid when it comes to biology and science. Why is t so hard to also admit that perhaps these authors were completely ignorant as to how Earth formed and life evolved? That Genesis is a poetic creation story and was probably never meant to be taken literally?

Huh? Back then they didn't have a word for bacteria, why do you think they were stupid? Where did I admit this? Explain. I said they were ACCURATE regarding this issue.

[Shermana]

3. Can cyanobacteria survive without an ozone layer?

Absolutely.

Please back that statement up with a link.

And I don't know why Ocean depth of "deep waters" would have any absorbant effect on the UV, please explain how.

Well... if you like you can read about this phenomena at multiple available sources, for instance here: http://repository.tamu.edu/bitstream/ha ... sequence=1
or you can believe me that UV electromagnetic radiation is effectively absorbed in the depth of meters to hundreds of meters depending on wavelength.

As I glance over that, please say which page has the pertinent data that suggests that the BG Algae could survive the UV at such pre-ozone levels. I'm assuming you've read the whole thing and know exactly where it is. At what depth in the beginning (in more "pristine" aquatic conditions) would the Sun's UV no longer have an effect, for everyone reading who doesn't have time to read 100 pages?

Many bacteria can survive high amounts of direct UV light. Especially those who evolved for it.

I must be not seeing the link you speak of NYGreenguy, can you repost a link that shows which Oxygen-producing bacteria could survive direct UV light for long periods of time? Or rather I should say, can you copy and paste the list for the reader here on this thread. Those links that Furrowed brow appear to be cached and need acces, I'll try again though.

Hold on here, if I'm not mistaken, his third link is about how UV can be used as "bloom control" because it kills it off? Am I mistaken and misread it?

[Ragna]

As I glance over that, please say which page has the pertinent data that suggests that the BG Algae could survive the UV at such pre-ozone levels. I'm assuming you've read the whole thing and know exactly where it is. At what depth in the beginning (in more "pristine" aquatic conditions) would the Sun's UV no longer have an effect, for everyone reading who doesn't have time to read 100 pages?

Actually it's not that complex. Water acts like a filter. If you notice, the closer you are to a deep seabed, the lesser clarity there is (it gets darker and darker, proportional to the depth). This is because visible light is also an electromagnetic radiation within the spectrum. The same logic can be applied to UV radiation, which is another type of radiation. Therefore, even those organisms which in normal conditions can't survive UV radiation would vie well in the depths for millions of years.

Look at this paragraph for what happened after this situation:

Evolutionary significance

Evolution of early reproductive proteins and enzymes is attributed in modern models of evolutionary theory to ultraviolet light. UVB light causes thymine base pairs next to each other in genetic sequences to bond together into thymine dimers, a disruption in the strand that reproductive enzymes cannot copy (see picture above). This leads to frameshifting during genetic replication and protein synthesis, usually killing the organism. As early prokaryotes began to approach the surface of the ancient oceans, before the protective ozone layer had formed, blocking out most wavelengths of UV light, they almost invariably died out. The few that survived had developed enzymes that verified the genetic material and broke up thymine dimer bonds, known as base excision repair enzymes. Many enzymes and proteins involved in modern mitosis and meiosis are similar to excision repair enzymes, and are believed to be evolved modifications of the enzymes originally used to overcome UV light.[56]

Once the primitive cyanobacteria approached the surface, only those who evolved more resistant to the radiation could live there, and the rest who emerged and didn't adapt died out (via the common process of natural selection). Once here, they photosynthesized to fill the atmosphere with oxygen (which also provided the ozone), causing the oxygen catastrophe, which allowed aerobic organisms (like plants, much later) to prosper.

Do you have any evidence to support a rival, valid, scientific theory? Or which goes against the current model?

[100%atheist]

3. Can cyanobacteria survive without an ozone layer?

Absolutely.

Please back that statement up with a link.

And I don't know why Ocean depth of "deep waters" would have any absorbant effect on the UV, please explain how.

Well... if you like you can read about this phenomena at multiple available sources, for instance here: http://repository.tamu.edu/bitstream/ha ... sequence=1
or you can believe me that UV electromagnetic radiation is effectively absorbed in the depth of meters to hundreds of meters depending on wavelength.

As I glance over that, please say which page has the pertinent data that suggests that the BG Algae could survive the UV at such pre-ozone levels. I'm assuming you've read the whole thing and know exactly where it is. At what depth in the beginning (in more "pristine" aquatic conditions) would the Sun's UV no longer have an effect, for everyone reading who doesn't have time to read 100 pages?

Shermana,

I am talking about the interaction of UV light with water, not about Algae. I refer to figure 1.3 in the link that I sent you. The wavelengths of UV radiation are somewhere between 200 nm and 400 nm. As you can see from the plot, the absorption coefficient of water in this range of wavelengths is less than 0.1 cm^-1, meaning that the intensity of UV radiation will be reduced by roughly speaking 63% over the distance of 1 mm.

I hope this answers your question why Ocean's water absorbs UV light.

100%

[Furrowed Brow]

For those who the links were not working here are the three relevant abstracts.

• The structure of scytonemin, an ultraviolet sunscreen pigment from the sheaths of cyanobacteria P. J. Proteau, W. H. Gerwick, F. Garcia-Pichel and R. CastenholzDespite knowledge of the existence of the pigment called scytonemin for over 100 years, its structure has remained unsolved until now. This pigment, the first shown to be an effective, photo-stable ultraviolet shield in prokaryotes, is a novel dimeric molecule (molec. wt. 544) of indolic and phenolic subunits and is known only from the sheaths enclosing the cells of cyanobacteria. It is probable that scytonemin is formed from a condensation of tryptophan-and phenylpropanoid-derived subunits. The linkage between these units is unique among natural products and this novel ring structure is here termed the scytoneman skeleton . Scytonemin absorbs strongly and broadly in the spectral region 325"425 nm (UV-A-violet-blue, with an in vivo maximum at 370 nm). However, there is also major absorption in the UV-C ( max=250nm) and UV-B (280"320 nm). The pigment has been recently shown to provide significant protection to cyanobacteria against damage by ultraviolet radiation. The pigment occurs in all phylogenetic lines of sheathed cyanobacteria and possibly represents a UV screening strategy far more ancient than that of plant flavonoids and animal melanins. How diverse organisms deal with UV radiation is considered of vital importance to global ecology.
  
  Long-term effects of UV and visible irradiance on natural populations of a scytonemin-containing cyanobacterium (Calothrix sp.) Stephan Brenowitz, Richard W. CastenholzAbstract: A natural warm spring stream with a cyanobacterial biofilm community composed almost entirely of Calothrix sp., a species rich in the UV-absorbing sheath pigment scytonemin, was used for 3 month summer experiments to test the following hypotheses: (1) UV radiation is necessary for the synthesis of high scytonemin content in sheaths. (2) High scytonemin content is required for uninhibited photosynthesis under high UV flux. Both of these hypotheses were answered affirmatively in earlier experiments with laboratory cultures of other cyanobacterial species. However, the tests of these hypotheses under natural conditions were necessary to confirm these conclusions, mainly because fluxes of UV and visible radiation and their ratios are very different under field conditions. Intact mats of Calothrix, siliceous substrate cleared of Calothrix, and artificial foam were treated for 3 months under filters transparent to UV radiation and visible light, and under filters that excluded only UV radiation. Neutral density screens were used in combination with filters to reduce the total irradiance over some sections of the stream. After 3 months, under all treatments, the predominant organism was still the same morphotype of Calothrix. Intact Calothrix mats produced high levels of scytonemin over the summer, except under low UV and low visible irradiance, while chlorophyll-a values per unit area remained relatively low and showed little change under all treatments. After 3 months, intact Calothrix mat and colonized mat with substantial scytonemin were not inhibited photosynthetically by UV irradiance. Only colonized populations exposed to 12% UV and 12% visible irradiance, and with very low scytonemin content, showed significant UV-inhibition. Thus, the correlation between UV protection and scytonemin presence was established experimentally for the first time under solar irradiance in a natural, essentially monospecific population of a cyanobacterium.
  
  SCYTONEMIN, A CYANOBACTERIAL SHEATH PIGMENT, PROTECTS AGAINST UVC RADIATION: IMPLICATIONS FOR EARLY PHOTOSYNTHETIC LIFE Jesse G. Dillon, Richard W. CastenholzAbstract: During the Precambrian, ultraviolet (UV) radiation reaching the Earths surface, including UVC wavelengths (190"280 nm), was considerably higher than present because of the lack of absorbing gases (e.g. O2 and O3) in the atmosphere. High UV flux would have been damaging to photosynthetic organisms exposed to solar radiation. Nevertheless, fossil evidence indicates that cyanobacteria-like ancestors may have evolved as early as 3.5 109 yr ago, and were common in shallow marine habitats by 2.5 109 years ago. Scytonemin, a cyanobacterial extracellular sheath pigment, strongly absorbs UVC radiation. Exposure to high-irradiance conditions caused cells to synthesize scytonemin and resulted in decreased UVC inhibition of photosynthetic carbon uptake. It was further demonstrated that scytonemin alone was sufficient for substantial protection against UVC damage. This represents the first experimental demonstration of biological protection against UVC radiation in cyanobacteria. These results suggest that scytonemin may have evolved during the Precambrian and allowed colonization of exposed, shallow-water and terrestrial habitats by cyanobacteria or their oxygenic ancestors.

Hold on here, if I'm not mistaken, his third link is about how UV can be used as "bloom control" because it kills it off? Am I mistaken and misread it?

Yes the link was not so relevant, or rather it needs a little more reading into. I included it because as you will note not all the cynobacteria perished under the test conditions and some did quite well. But then the conditions were "sub lethal". The paper provides an example of bloom control not bloom eradiction. It was noted that non-toxic C. ellipsoidea, C. vulgaris, and S. Quadricauda were less sensistive to UV than the toxic yanobacterium Microcystis aeruginosa. Some cynobacteria seem to be more UV hardy than others.

In addition to the points made in this thread how water filters out UV here is another link to a site that talks abouthypolithic cyanobacteria existing under rocks when conditions get tough.

However I note Shermana additional requests to 100%Atheist and nygreenguy for more precise details.

At what depth in the beginning (in more "pristine" aquatic conditions) would the Sun's UV no longer have an effect,

vI must be not seeing the link you speak of NYGreenguy, can you repost a link that shows which Oxygen-producing bacteria could survive direct UV light for long periods of time? Or rather I should say, can you copy and paste the list for the reader here on this thread. Those links that Furrowed brow appear to be cached and need acces, I'll try again though.[/quote]
Whilst it is interesting to chase down the exact details like at exactly what depth the sun no longer affects cynobacteria the request task masks the more obvious point that the case is demonstrated as to how the little critters would survive without an ozone layer. At this point the onus is on Shermana to demonstrate why cynobacteria cannot survive without an ozone layer given

1/ rocks to hide under
2/ water to hide in
3/ UV protective pigments

Are we done with cynobacteria now?

[nursebenjamin]

So you admit that the authors of Genesis were kind of stupid when it comes to biology and science. Why is t so hard to also admit that perhaps these authors were completely ignorant as to how Earth formed and life evolved? That Genesis is a poetic creation story and was probably never meant to be taken literally?

Huh? Back then they didn't have a word for bacteria, why do you think they were stupid? Where did I admit this? Explain. I said they were ACCURATE regarding this issue.

Sorry, I misread what you wrote. I had just gotten home from a 14 hour shift, and my eyes were glazed over. Anyhow, your claim is that the authors of Genesis were ignorant of cyanobacteria, right? Why not also assume that these authors could have been ignorant of a wee bit more as well?

Anyhow, Genesis 1 specifically claims that grass, the herb yielding seed, and fruit trees were among the first plants created.[1] So any argument that you make against cyanobacteria evolving in the oceans can also be applied to grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit trees on land. You claim that cyanobacteria could not have evolved without an ozone layer -- well, how did grass, herb yielding seed and fruit trees survive without the ozone layer???

My guess is that you are going to make excuses as to why grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit trees could have survived way back when, but cyanobacteria could not have. Ill even guess as to what your excuse will be: God created grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit trees before creating the sun. Even without the process of photosynthesis, the atmosphere filled with oxygen, and some of this oxygen spontaneously formed ozone molecules. This was one of the first miracles!!!

A bigger problem that you run into, and probably havent considered, is that without the sun, temperatures on earth would have approached absolute zero. How the heck did grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit trees survived overnight in temperatures near absolute zero? Let me guess, your answer to this is again going to be magic, right? This begs the question: did God use a spell, or did God use a magic wand to keep the grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit trees from freezing to death?

[100%atheist]

A bigger problem that you run into, and probably havent considered, is that without the sun, temperatures on earth would have approached absolute zero. How the heck did grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit trees survived overnight in temperatures near absolute zero? Let me guess, your answer to this is again going to be magic, right? This begs the question: did God use a spell, or did God use a magic wand to keep the grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit trees from freezing to death?

Do you really think that the creature that "also makes stars" in a fraction of a day cares about your laws of physics? If God exists ANYTHING is possible. I don't think Shermana understands, that if she claims the existence of God in first place, she does not need to provide any logical arguments for the coherency of the creation story based on any known science laws. Anything she concludes from a wrong statement will be automatically logically true.

[nursebenjamin]

A bigger problem that you run into, and probably havent considered, is that without the sun, temperatures on earth would have approached absolute zero. How the heck did grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit trees survived overnight in temperatures near absolute zero? Let me guess, your answer to this is again going to be magic, right? This begs the question: did God use a spell, or did God use a magic wand to keep the grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit trees from freezing to death?

Do you really think that the creature that "also makes stars" in a fraction of a day cares about your laws of physics? If God exists ANYTHING is possible. I don't think Shermana understands, that if she claims the existence of God in first place, she does not need to provide any logical arguments for the coherency of the creation story based on any known science laws. Anything she concludes from a wrong statement will be automatically logically true.

That is basically my point. If ANYTHING is possible; if stars can form in a fraction of a day; if grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit trees can survive in temperatures near absolute zero, then it is absurd to argue that cyanobacteria could not have evolved a few meters under the surface of oceans.

[Shermana]

A bigger problem that you run into, and probably havent considered, is that without the sun, temperatures on earth would have approached absolute zero. How the heck did grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit trees survived overnight in temperatures near absolute zero? Let me guess, your answer to this is again going to be magic, right? This begs the question: did God use a spell, or did God use a magic wand to keep the grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit trees from freezing to death?

Do you really think that the creature that "also makes stars" in a fraction of a day cares about your laws of physics? If God exists ANYTHING is possible. I don't think Shermana understands, that if she claims the existence of God in first place, she does not need to provide any logical arguments for the coherency of the creation story based on any known science laws. Anything she concludes from a wrong statement will be automatically logically true.

What part about "Male" in my profile don't you understand. Seriously, everyone thinks the "A" suffix is automatically feminine.

Anyways, I imagine whatever "light" was in 1:1 was providing the heat. What that Light was, is another subject which I'm not researched enough to discuss, and can only say it may be related to Active Galactic Nuclei (Quasars) and their Supermassive Blackhole power generation.