Unanswered questions

[downbeatplumb]

Drich

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

[Drich]

When you say that a given paradox in the evolutionary progress of a given plant that i point out, is an attribute to a genetic mutation,and yet you provide absolutly no proof such a mutation has been specifically identified and so labled. your appeal to genetic mutation becomes an appeal to faith.

Okay, I need you to listen to me, very carefully: evolution, the mechanism of evolution, is genetic variation and mutation. The chances of the explanation for this issue being a mutation or genetic variation, from an evolutionary perspective, is one hundred percent. There is literally no other form of evolution but variation and mutation. You're right, I don't know the specific mutation involved, but then, I don't have to: evolution is an observed fact, it happens, and therefore the mechanism by which it happens is the mechanism by which this specific trait has been inculcated.

My not being able to point to the specific mutation involved doesn't mean that a proved, demonstrated and observable accepted theory of mainstream science isn't happening. That's an argument from ignorance, and again, you're saying that accepting a proposition that is observable and consistent with reality requires proof in every specific instance of it. I'm happy saying evolution is the process behind this thing: at least that's demonstrable.

Because what is happening is that I have provided a paradox you can not solve in the theory as you understand it.

Oh right, and there's also this: the "paradox" that you're posing here isn't an issue at all, because evolution doesn't factor in the environment when producing variation. The environment dictates the frequency by which the organisms survive, but not the type and function of the initial traits and variation in the first place. Does this plant's ability to process more sunlight harm it, in a normal environment? If not, then there's no reason for it to be excluded.

This isn't like Pokemon. Your Castform might change depending on the environment, but real animals don't. Actually read my posts before you persist with this incorrect objection. Better yet, actually research what evolution is.

So rather than further discuss you dismiss to genetic mutation. This again with out documented proof such a mutation exists, your efforts can be likened to a theist who simply answers 'God works in mysterious ways.' Your default to mutation is an appeal to faith. Not faith in God but faith in science,in that such a mutation does indeed exist. Which means, your laziness to look up whether such a mutation exists or not says you either do not care about what is being discussed, we have reached your potential limit of what is being discussed, or that your indeed a man of faith.

Or rather, that your objection is nonsensical. If you'd actually provided an objection that conforms to what evolution actually is, you bet I'd go out and research this. But since your objection has absolutely no bearing on evolution, doesn't actually pose a problem for it, I don't need to answer in any detail.

You are saying that this plant poses a problem for evolution due to x. I respond that x has nothing to do with evolution, and so the mechanism by which evolution functions can explain the details of x, because it does, even if I don't have complete knowledge of it.

It's like how you can not know how a combustion engine works, yet still drive a car.

I don't like calling people stupid, so I have left two options on the table. Lazy or man of faith. I don't think your lazy. I believe you re just a shmoe who has the capacity for blind faith. And because your faith in science is good enough for you it in turn should be good enough for me.

Once again, evolution is an observed, scientific fact. It occurs, across every organism on the planet. I've seen it occur- my family breeds dogs- and I've researched it occurring in nature. It happens. So when I say that mutations and variations explain this thing, it's not faith, because mutation is what evolution is, and again, evolution is a demonstrated fact.

You can't lump me in with you god botherers, because of the two of us, only one actually has the ability to demonstrate the process behind our belief here.

Ok my turn, I talk you listen. I am asking you to provide proof that the mutation being identified in your arguement is indeed a mutation. The reason being because both you and faith no more seem to think or rather are arguing front the position that the current plants being discussed are progressing in their evolutionary scale and have mutated into something more adaptable, some big next step. When my arguement centers itself in the other direction. In that these 'mutations' are preexisting, and evolution of plant life is taking plants away from the ability to process higher amounts of solar energy. Any one with a reef tank who has to buy a 2x or 3x uv bulb can tell you it turbo charges algae growth. Along with reef growth. Algae being one of the oldest and forms of plant life on the planet. While recent additions like cultivated house plants are almost allergic to direct sunlight.

I asked you to prove your mutation theory because you can't. These are not mutations. The mutations are found in the plants who can no longer be over exposed to sunlight.

[Esquilax]

Ok my turn, I talk you listen. I am asking you to provide proof that the mutation being identified in your arguement is indeed a mutation.

And I'm telling you that every feature of a living organism is a mutation, just one in a chain of countless others stretching back to the initial abiogenetic event, whatever that was. Mutation and variation are the mechanism by which evolution- a process we can confirm to happen across all species stretching back as far as we can currently investigate- occurs. Asking me if this specific one is a mutation is like asking me if the plant involved is a plant. It's very hard to answer with specifics because the question itself is so blindingly obvious it'd be almost insulting to your intelligence to actually answer it, except that you've asked it seriously.

The reason being because both you and faith no more seem to think or rather are arguing front the position that the current plants being discussed are progressing in their evolutionary scale and have mutated into something more adaptable, some big next step.

Not at all, and again, this is where you show a misunderstanding of evolution. It's not a ladder, there's no progression, there's just change. It's not that this specific trait is some huge new thing- although I have supposed in previous posts that such a trait might be advantageous, this is true- but rather that it isn't outright harmful enough to kill the plant, and therefore there's no downward selection pressure sufficient to kill off the trait in the species.

Please, if you haven't, go and read that link that downbeatplumb posted earlier, it might clear up a few things for you.

When my arguement centers itself in the other direction. In that these 'mutations' are preexisting, and evolution of plant life is taking plants away from the ability to process higher amounts of solar energy. Any one with a reef tank who has to buy a 2x or 3x uv bulb can tell you it turbo charges algae growth. Along with reef growth. Algae being one of the oldest and forms of plant life on the planet. While recent additions like cultivated house plants are almost allergic to direct sunlight.

Sure, that's also very possible. My objections have always been to your claim that, because there's never been an environment conducive to obtaining that much solar energy, that evolution couldn't produce such a trait. Not this new thing.

I asked you to prove your mutation theory because you can't. These are not mutations. The mutations are found in the plants who can no longer be over exposed to sunlight.

What is it you think a mutation is? As I've said, any change in an organism is technically a mutation; it's just a variation from an existing gene. The overperforming photosynthetic plants were a mutation, and any that are losing that ability would be mutations too. Hell, humans have a bunch of them, generation to generation. I'm not really sure what your objection is, anymore.

[Cyberman]

Ok my turn, I talk you listen.

You do realise this is the point where many people are going to stop reading what you have to say, right? This is a text-based forum, each post is displayed in sequence with no possibility of interruption or drowning out. So your remark only served one purpose and it's not a reasonable one.

[Mystical]

Ok my turn, I talk you listen. I am asking you to provide proof that the mutation being identified in your arguement is indeed a mutation.

Especially when followed with an ignoramus request for proof of something that's common knowledge.

[Faith No More]

Ok my turn, I talk you listen. I am asking you to provide proof that the mutation being identified in your arguement is indeed a mutation. The reason being because both you and faith no more seem to think or rather are arguing front the position that the current plants being discussed are progressing in their evolutionary scale and have mutated into something more adaptable, some big next step. When my arguement centers itself in the other direction. In that these 'mutations' are preexisting, and evolution of plant life is taking plants away from the ability to process higher amounts of solar energy. Any one with a reef tank who has to buy a 2x or 3x uv bulb can tell you it turbo charges algae growth. Along with reef growth. Algae being one of the oldest and forms of plant life on the planet. While recent additions like cultivated house plants are almost allergic to direct sunlight.

I asked you to prove your mutation theory because you can't. These are not mutations. The mutations are found in the plants who can no longer be over exposed to sunlight.

I think you fail to grasp the implications of your original claim, which was that plants absorbing more energy from artificial light sources disproves evolution because it cannot account for it. To prove you wrong, I do not have to point to the specific mutation or how it came about. All I have to do is demonstrate a scenario in which evolution can account for it, and not only was I able to do so, Esquillax was able to give another. So, all your whining about not knowing the exact mutation and having faith in evolution is just empty posturing that shows you either refuse to admit your were wrong, or you just simply can't understand that you have been proven incorrect.

Regardless, don't attempt to lower our position to being on par with your unevidenced delusions. It's pathetic.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I am asking you to provide proof that the mutation being identified in your arguement is indeed a mutation.

Esquilax has it right, Dritch: EVERY feature of EVERY living organism is a mutation. That's how biology works. Consider: If this wasn't the case, then no organisms would have ever evolved, and the planet would, even now, be populated only by the original abiogenetic organisms.

Biological evolution is a fact. A hard, cold, brute fact. To deny that it has taken place and is taking place and will continue to take place simply indicates and unwillingness to accept reality, and unwillingness that borders on the perverse.

Boru

[Drich]

You guys still don't get it. The mutation in this case make the plant less effencient. In essence the plants are in a sense devolving as they 'evolve' so as to modify themselves to fit the environments they now live in. If a plant could orginaly process 100w aday and now in a more modern form can only process 75w aday then the 'mutation' speaks against evolution especially since we are told by the same science the planet is getting warmer.

My question from the beginning that can not be explained by mutation is if the daily amount of solar input of a given species is 75w at full contact, then how is it possible that some of the oldest species of plant life can successfully process so much more solar energy when made available?

[Bad Writer]

At least you're admitting there's a mutation now.

[Drich]

At least you're admitting there's a mutation now.

5th thread on page 19 was a repeat of a pervious acknowledgement of mutation. I said not that there is no such thing as mutation... Its just how you use the word as a catch all phrase to explain everything you can not, makes it an appeal to faith.

Mutations are identified and cataloged. I pointed out, that if you can not properly identify said mutation you are appealing to your faith in evolution that what you can not explain is indeed a mutation. What is the alternative to mutation? The identification of a seperate species, or even an anomaly. Mutations do not happen in a vacuum, which according you how you people use the word one would think they did. The fact that everything is being identified as a mutation means you guys are hopelessly lost in your faith.