Hydrogen Fuel Cell Found in Nature

It is mind-boggling how this discovery doesn't have more people scratching their heads. A Hydrogen fuel cell generator is a state-of-the-art type of energy generation device that can create energy from Hydrogen and oxygen bonding to create water.





What's wild about this discovery, is that this sort of device was found IN NATURE all the way back in 1857. It was also discovered to have attributes that still vastly triumph over even the most advanced hydrogen fuel cells today. This natural hydrogen fuel cell was found to be able to self-replicate and therefore able to theoretically perpetuate ad-infinitum by creating more and more of itself. Some may know by now I am speaking about the mitochondria found in all independent living organisms:



Now the popular theory wants us to believe that these intricate organic hydrogen fuel cells came to be from random chance. But when would you ever suppose advanced tech would be able to be generated by random chance? Surely it requires an engineer. The idea that mitochondria came from bacterial mutation simply kicks the can down the road to the same conundrum: motors do not come from random chance. If you saw a motor in the woods you wouldn't assume it was created through random chance, you would know it was made through meticulous engineering. Let's look at the details of how the mitochondria acts like a hydrogen fuel cell:



This is a close-up of the folded membrane you see in the mitochondria. The reason the inside of it has a folded layer is because it maximizes surface area to allow a higher reaction rate. The reaction is made possible by segregating protons from electrons across the membrane, which creates an electrochemical gradient that is capable of spinning a turbine on ATP synthase, a protein that resembles a stator and rotor just like our man-made motors we produce today:



The spinning action of the rotor allows the creation of energy in the form of ATP by storing chemical energy in its new phosphate bond. This is the universal energy used in all independent living organisms. Fats, proteins, and carbohydrates have their electrons stripped and transported to the mitochondria to establish the gradient that spins this turbine and ultimately creates energy from the food you eat. These things are working non-stop in every cell of your body, proven to be able to keep going through successive replications for over 100 years. This is a feat that is far beyond the comprehension of the best human engineers on the planet.

"For from the creation of the world the invisible things of Him are clearly seen, being understood through the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse."

Romans 1:20

a reply to: cooperton

There is simply no known cause, other than intelligent design, for machine-like structures with multiple interacting parts.


Bacterial flagella contain rotors, stators, drive shafts, u-joints, and propellers.

so what?

a reply to: cooperton

I’m assuming our lungs use a different process for converting oxygen into energy. As this is the main way of creating the energy our body’s need, do you know what is involved in this process?

originally posted by: cooperton
What's wild about this discovery, is that this sort of device was found IN NATURE all the way back in 1857. It was also discovered to have attributes that still vastly triumph over even the most advanced hydrogen fuel cells today. This natural hydrogen fuel cell was found to be able to self-replicate and therefore able to theoretically perpetuate ad-infinitum by creating more and more of itself. Some may know by now I am speaking about the mitochondria found in all independent living organisms:

I thought the primary function of the mitochondria was to produce a substance called ATP, aka Adenosene Tri-Phosphate, which has a chemical structure that involves more than just hydrogen and oxygen.

I don't see any links to your apparently plagiarized material or illustrations so it's unclear if you even are aware of the ATP aspect of mitochondria. This is the molecular structure of ATP which includes more than just hydrogen and oxygen, note the nitrogen and phosphorus:


But technical aspects of your story aside, the bigger problem is your logical fallacy called Argument from Incredulity

Now the popular theory wants us to believe that these intricate organic hydrogen fuel cells came to be from random chance. But when would you ever suppose advanced tech would be able to be generated by random chance?

You misrepresent evolution as "random chance". There is some chance involved but it's not correct to characterize the whole process as "random chance", it's very non-random since successful features tend to propagate while unsuccessful features tend to not propagate.

I interpret your logical fallacy as something along these lines:

1. I can't imagine how mitochondria can evolve naturally.
2. (If it was possible for mitochondria to evolve naturally, I am omniscient enough to imagine all the possible ways that could happen).
-- Therefore, mitochondria could not have evolved naturally, it must have been engineered.

I believe you think point 1 is true, for you. Obviously some people are going to take exception to your 2nd implied point, that you think you're all-knowing enough to imagine all the possible ways it could happen, and that's where your logic breaks down.

originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: cooperton

I’m assuming our lungs use a different process for converting oxygen into energy. As this is the main way of creating the energy our body’s need, do you know what is involved in this process?

Lungs bring in oxygen that gets carried through arteries to the cells in our bodies which then use that oxygen to forego this process in the mitochondria located inside the cells. The oxygen becomes water from bonding to the H+ ions after it flows down the electrochemical gradient and spins the ATP synthase turbine. deoxygenated blood is blue in our veins returning to the lungs to get more oxygen to continue to repeat this process. Our circulatory system is like a highway for oxygen, among many other compounds, to be distributed properly to the cells of our body to allow metabolic processes.

To simplify the reaction:

electrons and protons come from the food we eat, oxygen comes from the air we breathe, and these 3 components allow the hydrogen fuel cell mitochondria to be able to produce energy in the form of ATP.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
I thought the primary function of the mitochondria was to produce a substance called ATP, aka Adenosene Tri-Phosphate, which has a chemical structure that involves more than just hydrogen and oxygen.

I don't see any links to your apparently plagiarized material or illustrations so it's unclear if you even are aware of the ATP aspect of mitochondria. This is the molecular structure of ATP which includes more than just hydrogen and oxygen, note the nitrogen and phosphorus:

[ats]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/Adenosintriphosphat_protoniert.svg/420px-Adenosintriphosphat_protoniert.svg.png

Huh? I literally said exactly that in the OP:

"The spinning action of the rotor allows the creation of energy in the form of ATP by storing chemical energy in its new phosphate bond."

You didn't even read the whole thing before you knee-jerk refused it's conclusion

But technical aspects of your story aside, the bigger problem is your logical fallacy called Argument from Incredulity
Now the popular theory wants us to believe that these intricate organic hydrogen fuel cells came to be from random chance. But when would you ever suppose advanced tech would be able to be generated by random chance?
You misrepresent evolution as "random chance". There is some chance involved but it's not correct to characterize the whole process as "random chance", it's very non-random since successful features tend to propagate while unsuccessful features tend to not propagate.

Any hard-drive changes to the DNA, according to the theory, come by random chance. Or do you wish to propose this process would have to be intelligently perpetuated?

I interpret your logical fallacy as something along these lines:

1. I can't imagine how mitochondria can evolve naturally.
2. (If it was possible for mitochondria to evolve naturally, I am omniscient enough to imagine all the possible ways that could happen).
-- Therefore, mitochondria could not have evolved naturally, it must have been engineered.

I believe you think point 1 is true, for you. Obviously some people are going to take exception to your 2nd implied point, that you think you're all-knowing enough to imagine all the possible ways it could happen, and that's where your logic breaks down.

So let me get this straight, you are arguing my supposed argument of incredulity with your argument of incredulity?

"I can't imagine how mitochondria could have been designed, therefore it must have evolved naturally"

How can this be your logical breakdown? You are assuming logical laws and logical creatures came to be without logic. It is the least logical assertion possible.

The origin of mitochondria - and it's not the guy with the magic wand:

Any hard-drive changes to the DNA, according to the theory, come by random chance

Your "random chance" theory doesn't hold water. I've asked you on multiple occasions to quote a biochemistry textbook that says that evolution is entirely random chance. To date, nothing. That's because it doesn't exist.

You don't understand process. You pick up random (genuinely random) information on the internet, reconfigure to support your cultist views and then expect people to believe it.

There's nothing miraculous about ATP generation. Everything alive requires energy. Photosynthesis is more complex than ATP production. I suppose the guy in the sky is responsible for that too?

originally posted by: Phantom423

Theorizing that mitochondria are bacteria simply kicks the can down the road, these mechanisms that resemble a hydrogen fuel cell generator must have came to be at some point or another, and it is outlandish to suppose this micromolecular machinery and the corresponding semi-permeable membrane came due to random changes in a genetic line. For example, a genetic line can't even exist without these metabolic processes... It's the chicken or the egg paradox over and over again.

Your "random chance" theory doesn't hold water. I've asked you on multiple occasions to quote a biochemistry textbook that says that evolution is entirely random chance.

You don't even know your own belief system. It's in the textbook definition of evolution:

"The diversity of life on Earth is a result of mutations, or random changes in hereditary material over time. These mutations allow the possibility for organisms to adapt to a changing environment. An organism that evolves characteristics fit for the environment will have greater reproductive success, subject to the forces of natural selection."
source

You don't understand process. You pick up random (genuinely random) information on the internet, reconfigure to support your cultist views and then expect people to believe it.

Where specifically was I incorrect about how the mitochondrion works?

There's nothing miraculous about ATP generation.

I never said ATP generation is a miracle, I said it is a meticulously designed process that manages to extract chemical energy from food and turn it into a form that is universally expendable within biological organisms.

Everything alive requires energy. Photosynthesis is more complex than ATP production. I suppose the guy in the sky is responsible for that too?

Well solar panels tend to not come into existence by random chance lol, so yeah it is very apparent that photosynthetic mechanisms were also designed. Imagine telling Elon Musk you invented something that can turn carbon dioxide into food, and it's also self-replicable and grows primarily with only water and sunlight. Oh yeah and you can use its organic material for 92% of the world's construction (wood). A tree is far beyond anything that humans can make. Solar panels last at most around 40 years, while trees can keep passing on their lineage ad-infinitum without any dirty industrial processes to create them either.

So yes, photosynthetic mechanisms and the organisms that harbor them are also very obviously designed.

seriously think about it, if someone invented something that could turn carbon dioxide into food, they'd win a nobel prize. Yet there it is all along, trees were created by the greatest Engineer in the history of forever.

originally posted by: cooperton
You don't even know your own belief system. It's in the textbook definition of evolution:

"The diversity of life on Earth is a result of mutations, or random changes in hereditary material over time. These mutations allow the possibility for organisms to adapt to a changing environment. An organism that evolves characteristics fit for the environment will have greater reproductive success, subject to the forces of natural selection."

The genetic mutations are random, but the natural selection of characteristics fit for the environment resulting from greater reproductive success is not random. You make it sound like the whole process is random, but it's not, it's very selective. That's why about 99% of the species that ever existed are extinct, they've been de-selected. So if someone was hypothetically "engineering" life, the "engineer" did a very poor job considering the over 99% failure rate.

a reply to: cooperton


You need to take this post where it belongs - over on the quackpot board. Thank you.

a reply to: cooperton

Adaptation to adversity

Whether; It's accidental, random or forced... Is a more accurate picture of what drives evolution.

I'm not sure why but adaptation is usually left out of talk of evolution... Because without adaptation? There is just extinction.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
The genetic mutations are random, but the natural selection of characteristics fit for the environment resulting from greater reproductive success is not random.

Sure but the basis of the change of the DNA sequence is from random chance. Such a process has been estimated to be about:

1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

source

Those are the apparent odds of making just one proper fold in an enzyme. Those are also just the odds of making a random enzyme fold, not necessarily a mutation that would be relevant to the organism.

You make it sound like the whole process is random, but it's not, it's very selective.

The problem isn't selecting, it's how you would be able to mutate a DNA strand to be able to code for the creation of ATP synthase and the other necessary proteins for the process of metabolism. That 1 in 10^64 number above would have to hit a multitude of times in a short timespan for the entirety of the assemblage to come together at once. Not to mention you need post-translational modifiers to allow everything to fold properly and know where to go in the cell.

A cell is reminiscent of a factory, go see the reaction you get when you tell the manager there that random chance ought to do a better job than his team could at generating the code required to build their product

That's why about 99% of the species that ever existed are extinct, they've been de-selected. So if someone was hypothetically "engineering" life, the "engineer" did a very poor job considering the over 99% failure rate.

They are extrapolating their data based on the assumption of the evolutionary timeline. Falsifying the evolutionary timeline falsifies their assumptions.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton


You need to take this post where it belongs - over on the quackpot board. Thank you.

You can no longer defend your point rationally, so you desperately resort to insult. Your faith is strong, it is a shame it is faith in a theory that is both ontologically and philosophically worthless

originally posted by: Crowfoot
a reply to: cooperton

Adaptation to adversity

Whether; It's accidental, random or forced... Is a more accurate picture of what drives evolution.

I'm not sure why but adaptation is usually left out of talk of evolution... Because without adaptation? There is just extinction.

Adaptation mechanism are a given in all organisms. We're finding now though that these adaptive mechanisms are already pre-set in our genome, rather than occurring by random chance DNA mutations. Take for example altitude acclimation in humans, it is due to the increase in 2,3-BPG production in cells. It allows red blood cells to deal more properly with the lower oxygen levels exhibited in higher elevations. Surely we are not evolving on our way up the mountain.

Yet this is also the case with antibiotic resistance. It is due to an increase in production of a detoxification pump elicited by the genome of the bacteria. Surely enough, when you remove the antibiotic resistance, the bacteria will relatively quickly resume normal susceptibility to antibiotic resistance:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

It is only a matter of time until more scientists start coming out and admitting evolutionary theory is out-dated based upon our observations of how biological mechanisms perpetuate.

youtu.be...

a reply to: cooperton

Wow! You hit a nerve. The Cult of Darwin never fails to follow their playbook.

1. Condescendingly explain how "your logic is flawed".

2. Tell you that "you don't understand how the scientific process works."

3. Attack you personally.

a reply to: [post=27109757]cooperton[/post

Sits back and waits for Ai to clean the clocks... There's a lot of pseudo science that was passed off as real science and still is that clogs the gears from time to time; When it is based on what a private institution/college accepts; Not accredited any where else, over a public institution/college as science?

Forget about it.

originally posted by: Crowfoot

Sits back and waits for Ai to clean the clocks... There's a lot of pseudo science that was passed off as real science and still is that clogs the gears from time to time; When it is based on what a private institution/college accepts; Not accredited any where else, over a public institution/college as science?

Forget about it.

It is exhausting going through a lot of these research papers only to find that they left out key details that strongly dismiss the evidence they are trying to put forth. Grant money is king though, so the more prolific the work appears to be, the higher the likelihood of bigger and better grants. Imagine if you're an evolutionary biologists... your career is contingent upon the theory remaining true... at all costs.

a reply to: cooperton

Write them a letter.

a reply to: cooperton

Oh that has been going on for quite some time; Before then it would be a prestigious post at a university as the reward.

I mean... the photosynthesis example is pretty funny... you know... given that the most efficient leaves have an energy conversion efficiency of like 0.1-0.2%... while solar panels are at about 10-20%.

Why? well because sky daddy wasn't great at engineering otherwise he'd of made plants form silicates with heavy metals in their leaves.

The argument here is highly false in the OP, largely because its a false equivalency. Sometimes our machines reflect nature, but, they are not the same and just because we invent things, and Nature SOMETIMES looks similar, is absolutely not to be used as evidence for intelligent design.

seriously, the human body... its not efficiently designed at all. If we want to play the same game in reverse, we should all take a look at the recurrent laryngeal nerve. A nerve that has presence across species where you can see that once upon a time it might have looked like a solid direct route, but as evolution occurred, the thing gets all kind of messed up and shows just how 'random' layout in a biological system can be.

Also im with posts above, your understanding of random is not really correct. We are not talking about a random die roll. Lets look at DNA mutation driven by radiation. An alpha interaction that changes DNA wont change a single location, it will change multiple... and if the DNA is non-viable the cell will die or become something else such as cancerous. If its viable however, The property only affects that cell. So... that doesn't help evolution much... BUT if that process occurs in Gametes, after combination, again if the change is viable, the change passes on to the next generation.
In simple organisms or single cell organisms this process cuts out the whole breeding part.

Mutations can come about due to chemical environment as well as just random mistakes during strand replication.

The statistics are, actually in our favour.

a base pair of DNA is 660g/mol , a human cell contains 6pg which is... 9.09e-15mols or 5.47e9 atoms.

A human on average apparently has 37Trillion cells, so thats 2.03e23 atoms, or 4.05e22 base pairs.

Studies have shown that the mutation rate in humans is about 0.5e-9 mutations per base pair per year.

Thats... 2.03e13 expected changes per year in our DNA... our whole bodies. We deal with it mostly, but, with age obviously we sometimes don't deal with it so well and the chance we get cancer becomes about the 'survival bias' aspect of life, or the longer you live, the higher the chance you get unlucky with the mutations.


So your idea of "No randomly changing DNA resulting in small evolutionary changes cant happen" is simply starting to look very shaky.

Remember thats just humans. So if you think about the oceans, the soil and the land being teeming full of bacteria... if you apply the same sorts of calculations... the mutation rates in other organisms are actually worse in general, id suspect owing to body mass giving a sort of radiation shielding effect then you can actually easily account for the mutation rates per year in simple organisms as being far more rapid... humans its 0.5e-9 per year, Yeast is about 10 times higher, and where it gets really high, at 100,000 times worse are things like.... virus... hence the yearly change in strains of flu for example.

The stats and 'chance' you state doesn't support your statements OP. Not to mention thats per cell per year, and the earth has been around for a few billion years easily... suddenly i think most people can easily see that, yes if you play the numbers you can make a case for life being an emergent property of its environment.

originally posted by: ErosA433
I mean... the photosynthesis example is pretty funny... you know... given that the most efficient leaves have an energy conversion efficiency of like 0.1-0.2%... while solar panels are at about 10-20%.

Well plants seem to be doing great lol.

Why? well because sky daddy wasn't great at engineering otherwise he'd of made plants form silicates with heavy metals in their leaves.

No solar panel we have lasts longer than trees. Trees make food and oxygen for animals and automatically make more of themselves. Trees win. They also look much better. Did you know 92% of all construction is made of wood? Thanks trees.

The argument here is highly false in the OP, largely because its a false equivalency. Sometimes our machines reflect nature, but, they are not the same and just because we invent things, and Nature SOMETIMES looks similar, is absolutely not to be used as evidence for intelligent design.

Another angry unintelligent design proponent. Ugh

seriously, the human body... its not efficiently designed at all. If we want to play the same game in reverse, we should all take a look at the recurrent laryngeal nerve. A nerve that has presence across species where you can see that once upon a time it might have looked like a solid direct route, but as evolution occurred, the thing gets all kind of messed up and shows just how 'random' layout in a biological system can be.

Ahh yes, a mere mortal suggesting upgrades to the bi-pedal organic supercomputer meat suits that allow a material interface for souls.

Also im with posts above, your understanding of random is not really correct. We are not talking about a random die roll. Lets look at DNA mutation driven by radiation. An alpha interaction that changes DNA wont change a single location, it will change multiple... and if the DNA is non-viable the cell will die or become something else such as cancerous. If its viable however, The property only affects that cell. So... that doesn't help evolution much... BUT if that process occurs in Gametes, after combination, again if the change is viable, the change passes on to the next generation.
In simple organisms or single cell organisms this process cuts out the whole breeding part.

Yet people really don't suffocate from eating food that much at all. There's reflexes to prevent it.

Mutations can come about due to chemical environment as well as just random mistakes during strand replication.

The statistics are, actually in our favour.

a base pair of DNA is 660g/mol , a human cell contains 6pg which is... 9.09e-15mols or 5.47e9 atoms.

A human on average apparently has 37Trillion cells, so thats 2.03e23 atoms, or 4.05e22 base pairs.

Studies have shown that the mutation rate in humans is about 0.5e-9 mutations per base pair per year.

Thats... 2.03e13 expected changes per year in our DNA... our whole bodies. We deal with it mostly, but, with age obviously we sometimes don't deal with it so well and the chance we get cancer becomes about the 'survival bias' aspect of life, or the longer you live, the higher the chance you get unlucky with the mutations.

Cool numbers, but without the electron transport chain there's no such thing as endogenous energy production, and therefore no peptide or DNA synthesis by any enzymes whatsoever. It's a chicken or the egg over and over and over again.

The stats and 'chance' you state doesn't support your statements OP. Not to mention thats per cell per year, and the earth has been around for a few billion years easily... suddenly i think most people can easily see that, yes if you play the numbers you can make a case for life being an emergent property of its environment.

No because that 1 in 10^64 needs to hit many times at the same time for all the necessary components of the electron transport chain to emerge. That is the odds of one proper fold on an enzyme, of which there are many in just ATP synthase alone, not even considering the other complexes. Also the bi-layer that establishes the gradient, the various factors that point all the proteins to their correct locations, the folding of them, and so on.

These are factory-like processes, indicative of a designer. Your unintelligent design theory is out-dated.