(September 6, 2013 at 9:23 am)Drich Wrote: Your quotation is working against you. Do you not understand the arguement? The link tells us that natural selection may not produce a “perfectly-engineered” trait.

Yet we have them. If natural selection will not produce 'x' and we have 'x' then explain for 'x'.

Your actually supporting my arguement that says, these plants did not 'evolve' here or they were "perfectly engeneered" to process a higher yield sun/source of uv light. For if Natural selection can not solve for 'X' then another explaination is needed to explain 'x'.

Seems to me that you're defining a problem into existence: who the hell says that this trait is perfectly engineered?

(September 6, 2013 at 9:23 am)Drich Wrote: Your quotation is working against you. Do you not understand the arguement? The link tells us that natural selection may not produce a “perfectly-engineered” trait.

Yet we have them. If natural selection will not produce 'x' and we have 'x' then explain for 'x'.

Your actually supporting my arguement that says, these plants did not 'evolve' here or they were "perfectly engeneered" to process a higher yield sun/source of uv light. For if Natural selection can not solve for 'X' then another explaination is needed to explain 'x'.

No, Drich, you numbnuts. The link says that evolution doesn't strive for perfectly engineered traits, as your claim was that evolution ought to have produced plants that use the sun perfectly and no other source. It says nothing about it being impossible for those traits to appear, but that is irrelevant as you failed to even support your claim that there are "perfectly engineered" traits in nature.

As you apparently failed to read my next post, and Esquillax's follwing one, I will recap for you. It is entirely possible that a mutation that created more chlorophyll than necessary to absorb the sun's energy could be beneficial in another way. As I said, the green color produced by chlorophyll could have been advantageous and a plant would evolve higher levels of it in spite of its needs of energy consumption. Also, evolution says that what is beneficial for survival gets passed on, but it does not say that what isn't beneficial automatically gets weeded out. Only those mutations that are detrimental to survival get weeded out and neutral ones can get passed on. A plant could have had a mutation that led it to have more chlorophyll than necessary and that mutation could still be passed on.

So, there you have it. Two scenarios in which evolution does account for a plant to evolve the ability to absorb more light than necessary.

(September 6, 2013 at 9:23 am)Drich Wrote: So, if they did not reach the saturation point with the only naturally occouring source avaiable to them to 'evolve' around then where did the 'learn' to process so much more light than what is avaiable?

If the plants maximize itself or just learn to survive in it's enviorment then the conditions of the enviorment 'cap' the organism ablity to develop. That is supposed why man evolved past the point of monkies. their enviorment 'caped' their evolution as their needs kept them small and light suited for trees, while our enviorment supposedly allowed for a more robust primate that had to learn to use tools, hunt, gather, defend himself from everything.

To have a plant with the ablity to process so much more uv light than what the enviroment allows for is counter what natural selection allows for.

See above.

(September 6, 2013 at 9:23 am)Drich Wrote: This is far too complex for me to try and explain to you when you do not reall care to learn any of this.

Are you fucking serious? Are you seriously avoiding backing up your claims and then attempting to lay the blame on me? Weak, Drich, even for you. I thought you were better than that.

(September 6, 2013 at 9:23 am)Drich Wrote: I'm not the one who is completely lost in this conversation

Are you sure? I'm not certain you would know if you were lost.

(September 6, 2013 at 3:40 am)Faith No More Wrote: Also, Drich, I must also mention that evolutionary traits often have dual prupose, so for your claim to be true you must demonstrate that the chlorophyll that absorbs light cannot have another use. Otherwise, another need for survival could have caused a plant to devlop more chlorophyll than is necessary to absorb the energy of the sun. For a hypothetical example, cholorphyll is what gives plants its green color, so there may have been an evolutionary advantage to fully devolp that trait, which would lead a plant to have the ability to process more energy than the sun gives off. So, your next hurdle for your claim that evolution is disproven by plants being able to absorb more energy from artificial light is to prove that chlorophyll has one purpose and one purpose only.

What I've demonstrated is that you do not understand the arguement and have gone off on a non sepuitur searching for a dual purpose chlorophyll

---

(September 6, 2013 at 8:39 am)BadWriterSparty Wrote: This whole discussion about plants is moot because the sun is demonstrably older than the earth anyway.

again perspective is what is being described. The age of the earth is not mentioned nor is the age of the sun.

---

(September 6, 2013 at 8:40 am)Esquilax Wrote: Because being able to overperform is leagues better than having to deal with underperformance?

Hell, more than that, evolution doesn't have a mind or anything, it's not specifically searching to maximize performance based upon the current environment. Traits that do that will definitely be inherited assuming nothing big happens, but the actual process is far, far messier than your gross oversimplification of it.

Where your arguements continue to fail is that there is not an enviorment on this planet nor ever has been according to 'science' that would allow for such a mutation. Name one species of anything that 'over performs' when the enviromental elements it orginally developed in doubles. Or more specifically put anything in the sun at double it current intensity and tell me what thrives.

Quote:These plants, for one, may have come by a photosynthetic mutation that allows them to absorb more sunlight than they need to, but because that mutation doesn't do any outright harm, it's allowed to persist despite serving no function.

It's not one species though so it can not be idnentified as a mutation. just about all plant life can benfit from modified artifical light exposure.

Quote:Since evolution has no framework that it's working within, the things it produces might seem nonsensical to you, but so long as there isn't a distinct disadvantage to them, there's no reason for them to stop existing.

Not the question i ask or presented. I asked what caused them to exist IF there was not an enviorment avaiable for them to develop in.

Quote: It's the same reason we have appendixes, or facial hair, on any number of useless traits; they aren't killing us, so there's no pressure on them to be bred out.

again no. Because all of those things at one point served a purpose supposedly. They served a purpose because our enviroment demanded them for survival. Again where your arguement fails is according to the global warming fear mongers there has never been a time on this planet long enough to have plant life develop this ablity to process this extra energy.

Which is why I keep saying that means these plants did not develop here or that they were designed with this extra ablity.

Quote:Also, versatility isn't a bad thing; sure these plants aren't using that extra photosensitivity now, but they have a distinct advantage in situations where sunlight is elevated. For all we know, in a couple million years time those plants might be the only ones still extant because they were the ones that could cope with some weird solar disaster.

Your examples are not valid. because you can not pin point an 'orgin' for the diversity in which you speak.

---

(September 6, 2013 at 9:45 am)Faith No More Wrote:

(September 6, 2013 at 9:23 am)Drich Wrote: Your quotation is working against you. Do you not understand the arguement? The link tells us that natural selection may not produce a “perfectly-engineered” trait.

Yet we have them. If natural selection will not produce 'x' and we have 'x' then explain for 'x'.

Your actually supporting my arguement that says, these plants did not 'evolve' here or they were "perfectly engeneered" to process a higher yield sun/source of uv light. For if Natural selection can not solve for 'X' then another explaination is needed to explain 'x'.

No, Drich, you numbnuts. The link says that evolution doesn't strive for perfectly engineered traits, as your claim was that evolution ought to have produced plants that use the sun perfectly and no other source. It says nothing about it being impossible for those traits to appear, but that is irrelevant as you failed to even support your claim that there are "perfectly engineered" traits in nature.

As you apparently failed to read my next post, and Esquillax's follwing one, I will recap for you. It is entirely possible that a mutation that created more chlorophyll than necessary to absorb the sun's energy could be beneficial in another way. As I said, the green color produced by chlorophyll could have been advantageous and a plant would evolve higher levels of it in spite of its needs of energy consumption. Also, evolution says that what is beneficial for survival gets passed on, but it does not say that what isn't beneficial automatically gets weeded out. Only those mutations that are detrimental to survival get weeded out and neutral ones can get passed on. A plant could have had a mutation that led it to have more chlorophyll than necessary and that mutation could still be passed on.

So, there you have it. Two scenarios in which evolution does account for a plant to evolve the ability to absorb more light than necessary.

(September 6, 2013 at 9:23 am)Drich Wrote: So, if they did not reach the saturation point with the only naturally occouring source avaiable to them to 'evolve' around then where did the 'learn' to process so much more light than what is avaiable?

If the plants maximize itself or just learn to survive in it's enviorment then the conditions of the enviorment 'cap' the organism ablity to develop. That is supposed why man evolved past the point of monkies. their enviorment 'caped' their evolution as their needs kept them small and light suited for trees, while our enviorment supposedly allowed for a more robust primate that had to learn to use tools, hunt, gather, defend himself from everything.

To have a plant with the ablity to process so much more uv light than what the enviroment allows for is counter what natural selection allows for.

See above.

(September 6, 2013 at 9:23 am)Drich Wrote: This is far too complex for me to try and explain to you when you do not reall care to learn any of this.

Are you fucking serious? Are you seriously avoiding backing up your claims and then attempting to lay the blame on me? Weak, Drich, even for you. I thought you were better than that.

(September 6, 2013 at 9:23 am)Drich Wrote: I'm not the one who is completely lost in this conversation

Are you sure? I'm not certain you would know if you were lost.

I'm done. It's obvious you do not get it. and I honestly do not care enough to break it down any further. Your faith in 'mutation' being your answer all that can not be explained, is far too strong to reason with just plain facts.

Bottom line you asked how can plant life be possiable with out the sun. You have your answer.

It is possiable for God to have provided light without the sun, or again do yoou think only man has the ablity to produce artifical light that plants can live by.

Drich Wrote:What I've demonstrated is that you do not understand the arguement and have gone off on a non sepuitur searching for a dual purpose chlorophyll

No, what you've demonstrated is your lack of understanding of mutations and the passing of those through genes. My point was that a mutation can be "selected" by evolution that has benefits in one manner(green color) but produces other side benefits(the ability to absorb more light than it needs), which disproves your claim that if evolution were true, a plant would be unable to evolve to a point where it could absorb more energy than it can receive from the sun.

It's been fun playing, though.

So Drich, do you still hold that the order of creation as presented in Genesis is correct, or do you concede that there's no way to justify the findings of the cosmos with a story that's outdated due to perceptual errors?

(September 6, 2013 at 12:20 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: So Drich, do you still hold that the order of creation as presented in Genesis is correct, or do you concede that there's no way to justify the findings of the cosmos with a story that's outdated due to perceptual errors?

I hold to my orginal assertion.

The creation account in Genesis is given from a Garden view perspective. Meaning if you were sat in the middle of the Garden these are the things you would see in the order you would see them.

Kinda like how the book of revelations was written. God did the same thing there. He took John of patmos and place Him in the middle of the action and John wrote down in his own words what he saw in the order he saw it happen.

---

(September 6, 2013 at 12:06 pm)Faith No More Wrote:

Drich Wrote:What I've demonstrated is that you do not understand the arguement and have gone off on a non sepuitur searching for a dual purpose chlorophyll

No, what you've demonstrated is your lack of understanding of mutations and the passing of those through genes. My point was that a mutation can be "selected" by evolution that has benefits in one manner(green color) but produces other side benefits(the ability to absorb more light than it needs), which disproves your claim that if evolution were true, a plant would be unable to evolve to a point where it could absorb more energy than it can receive from the sun.

It's been fun playing, though.

logical Fallacy/ad nausium.

(September 6, 2013 at 11:37 am)Drich Wrote: I'm done. It's obvious you do not get it.

So you keep saying, but you're the only one that has refrained from defending his position.

(September 6, 2013 at 11:37 am)Drich Wrote: and I honestly do not care enough to break it down any further. Your faith in 'mutation' being your answer all that can not be explained, is far too strong to reason with just plain facts.

Are we having the same conversation? I'm not placing faith in anything. All I have done is demonstrate that your claim that something is not possible through evolution is indeed, quite possible.

(September 6, 2013 at 11:37 am)Drich Wrote: Bottom line you asked how can plant life be possiable with out the sun. You have your answer.

I did not. I merely jumped in when you claimed evolution could not account for something.

(September 6, 2013 at 11:37 am)Drich Wrote: It is possiable for God to have provided light without the sun, or again do yoou think only man has the ablity to produce artifical light that plants can live by.

I really don't care. That wasn't my discussion.

(September 6, 2013 at 12:29 pm)Drich Wrote:

(September 6, 2013 at 12:20 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: So Drich, do you still hold that the order of creation as presented in Genesis is correct, or do you concede that there's no way to justify the findings of the cosmos with a story that's outdated due to perceptual errors?

I hold to my orginal assertion.

The creation account in Genesis is given from a Garden view perspective. Meaning if you were sat in the middle of the Garden these are the things you would see in the order you would see them.

Kinda like how the book of revelations was written. God did the same thing there. He took John of patmos and place Him in the middle of the action and John wrote down in his own words what he saw in the order he saw it happen.

Why in the world would a perfect god show his creation in an imperfect way, that is, having the sun come up after the earth is established? Did he actually stop the rotation of the earth for the first three days before making the sun and moon appear (an appeal to which would be special pleading) or did the writer simply not have all the observable information?

If god were to reveal his creation of the cosmos and earth to a prophet, one would expect, based on scientific studies of the way stars and solar systems are formed, that the sequence of events would look much different than what is described in Genesis.

If god was really showing man the creation account from an earthly perspective, we should expect the sun to at least already be in place, as well as night and day, a necessity with a rotating planet. At night, the only thing visible at first would be the stars, and then eventually the moon would come into the picture.

Water, a necessity for the eventuality of life, would appear next. He could then claim the spark of primitive life, showing that the first things created were the plants, and then the sea-dwelling creatures. Following this would be the introduction of land-based animals: amphibians and reptiles, followed by mammals and birds.

It follows that man would be the latest thing created, even though this should be included in the introduction of mammals. However, since this Bible is anthropomorphised, the writers thinking that man is the greatest achievement of their god, it stands to reason that man would be last on the list i.e. made in the image of god, etc.

This is not at all how the creation story is told. It's told from an unscientific, geo-centric perspective that has no knowledge about what the cosmos actually look like. The story makes sense from a man-made perspective, and not from the perspective of an all-knowing god.

Drich, I want to know how you reconcile this. Many Christians do not accept the Genesis account as it stands in the Bible because there is no reason to believe it to be accurate at all, based on current knowledge. They will not apologize for it because they are smart enough to not even touch the story with a ten-foot pole. Many more are coming around to the story of Noah and the ark because of the many absurdities contained within it, and some are even suggesting that the numbers talked about in the Exodus are greatly exaggerated, if not completely made up.

The thing is, if you are ready to believe even the mightily dubious creation account in Genesis, you are ready to believe just about anything else that conflicts with reason. I see that you've had some thoughts about the mindsets of the writers of that time, how their perspective was skewed because of their limited knowledge, but I want to bring it back to how this shouldn't be the case if they were actually getting their information from a perfect being.

What version/translation of the bible do you use and why???


.