Forum > Wonders of Nature

Photosynthesis

(1/1)

AGelbert:
 

A “textbook changing” new form of photosynthesis has been discovered 🔬
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.

Green Sea Squirts
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. 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! 


Journal reference: Dennis J. Nürnberg et al, Photochemistry beyond the red limit in chlorophyll f–containing photosystems, Science (2018). DOI: 10.1126/science.aar8313
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.

AGelbert:

--- Quote from: Palloy2 on June 16, 2018, 04:02:29 am ---
--- 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

--- End 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.

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. 



--- Quote --- This section examines various concerns evolutionists often have regarding their theory’s false predictions.
Responses to common objections
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 ---

AGelbert:
Huge phytoplankton bloom covers Southern Ocean
How Much Do Marine Plants Contribute to Earth’s Oxygen Supply?
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.

https://www.wisegeek.com/how-much-do-marine-plants-contribute-to-earths-oxygen-supply.htm

https://youtu.be/Ep5tcBXyFoE

Navigation

[0] Message Index