(September 5, 2013 at 6:31 pm)Drich Wrote: again how does that work?
If all plant life knew was "X" and builds and maximizes itself around "X" then how is it now more compatiable with "Xa?" where was the 'life' exposed to "a" to develop a better reaction to it?
Again, you're bastardizing evolution. Things don't evolve to maximize anything. They evolve to survive and pass on their genes. Plants evolved to use the enrergy from the sun to survive and reproduce, not to use the sun to maximum efficiency and no other source. We are able to create artificial sources of light that allow plants to receive more energy than they would get from the sun. That in no way implies a designer, nor does it disprove evolution.
(September 5, 2013 at 6:31 pm)Drich Wrote: The answer is it was either designed for better results when exposed to "Xa" or it orginated from some place that "Xa" was naturally occouring.
No, the answer is that you are completely mistaken and are speaking about things you don't understand.
(September 5, 2013 at 6:31 pm)Drich Wrote: If "a" is greater UV exposure then the whole global climbate change scare tatic is crap. If evolution is correct, and the plants developed and devolved here without a designer.
This is just nonsense.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
