The process of photosynthesis in plants is very complex. How could the first plant survive unless it already possessed this remarkable capability?
2007-10-11 10:46:20 · 23 answers · asked by Nourhan 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
You might want to look at blue green algae.
Their photosynthesis system is remarkably simpler.
2007-10-11 10:49:48 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
Why does everyone assume that Atheist= Darwinist? Maybe there are atheists out there who don't believe in science, either. Ever think of that, smart guy?
Anyway, if you have any idea what evolution is about, then you'd know that plants didn't start out as plants. They didn't just one day pop out of the ground fully formed with photosynthesis already loaded like a software program. It's something that changed and evolved over time while other means of survival faded out (in theory, mind you). In any case, there are tons of complex processes that go on in plants and animals that are just as confounding to simple explanations. Why not pick fish reproduction, or mammalian milk production?
2007-10-11 10:52:36 · answer #2 · answered by sacredvanity 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I'm not a Botanist, but the answer is simple..
If it couldn't survive, it DIDN'T survive. The ones that COULD survive, continued surviving.
Is that too complicated for you to understand?
Now, if you want to learn about the process of photosynthesis, then I suggest you ask this question under Botany, or any field of science relevant to the subject.
2007-10-11 11:19:11 · answer #3 · answered by word 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What about the ones WITH photosynthesis? How do biblical Creationists explain these plants surviving when there was no sun?
Bacterial life became both plant and animal. Some of these bacteria had developed photosynthetic capacities before fully becoming eucaryotic.
2007-10-11 10:53:45 · answer #4 · answered by neil s 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I am not a biologist. However, do you really think that a problem this obvious (which is merely a play on the "irreducible complexity" argument which has been proved at least for the most part a fallacy) hasn't been answered readily by people who study life and the theory of evolution? Ask in the biology section, I imagine there will be great answers for you there.
2007-10-11 10:53:52 · answer #5 · answered by N 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
There are plants at the bottom of the ocean that have been discovered to not need the sun in order to survive. We thought all life was dependent on the sun, which we have now learned to be false.
If you truly wanted a good answer you would have posted this in the correct section.
2007-10-11 10:50:43 · answer #6 · answered by alana 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The real question is why would God do that in the first place? Without a sun, the earth would be frozen. And no plants would survive -400° F for 24 hours.
2016-05-21 23:20:51 · answer #7 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
When a theist asks atheists about some fine detail of science in the Religion section, we now take it as read that you have no interest in an answer at all. Go and ask this in the biology section if you actually ARE interested. You'll find plenty of atheists there too.
2007-10-11 10:54:00 · answer #8 · answered by Bad Liberal 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Err...not really that complicated.
And the ocean was very full of organic compounds until the early animals came along and ate them. There was several million years for photosynthesis to develop.
And FYI: fungus are plants that don't do photosynthesis. I bet you can find a lot more.
2007-10-11 10:51:43 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
Seeing as you are obviously very bright I'd love you to find the other reason this could happen.
Just because you don't understand something don't use the GODDIDIT explanation.
If everyone had always done that we'd still be believing that thunder is god playing bowls in heaven - sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?
.
2007-10-11 11:09:22 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋