Unanswered questions

[Faith No More]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionar..._of_plants

I seldom speak on something I have not researched. In the above artical (I can post links to others that support it if you like) you will see that plants have evolved and become far more complex than the were orginally. Why? to MAXIMIZE and take full Advantage of the solar energy produced by the sun and to increase photosynthisis. (That is why not all plants resemble mossy carpets, and have since grown stems, trunkks and leaves.

You are falsely equivocating your claims of energy maximization, and your link had nothing to do with the original claim, which was that plants should have evolved to get maximum energy from the sun but no other sources. Now, you are merely claiming that plants will evolve to increase energy usage, something I never would have denied. I am denying your claim that a plant getting more energy from an artificial source disproves evolution, as evolution is adapting for survivability, not maximization of traits.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/ev...ough.shtml

Why does your intial rebuttal/theory fail? Because even if a plant reacts better to higher or certain levels of UV exposure, It would be endanger of getting to what amounts to be a sun burn. When the photoreactive cells are over exposed they do indeed burn up. For instance take a plant that has been adapted for low to no sun light, and put it into direct sunlight. Now depending on the plant and the condition in which it orginally came from that plant could do really well in full sunlight for a time, but at some point it's photo reactive cells reach a saturation point, at which time if the plant remains in direct sunlight it will get that sun burn i was talking about.

This doesn't seem to be relevant to your claim. Sure, plants have a particular saturation point, which will vary from species to species. If a certain plant is surviving in higher levels of light, clearly they haven't reached the saturation point. If they had reached the saturation point, they wouldn't survive in artificial light, which is central to your claim.

Some plants do better in almost twice the current intensity of sunlight than we currently get. Not just for a little while, but these plant can live extended lifecycles in this 2x sunlight. Again how is that possiable. How can a plant so over develop it photo reactive cells to the point where they can process twice the energy as everything else on the planet, but have Never been in a place, time or condition to have naturally (Bazillions of years appearently) these cells that will Never be used?

I'm going to need proof of these claims. Not only do you carry the burden of proof here, I need to know what species can do this to this and under what conditions.

But let's discuss this anyway.

Photosynthesis isn't simply dependent upon ability to absorb light. It also depends on other factors such CO2 levels and the availability of water for cooling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis

This means that a plant could evolve to absorb a certain amount of light, but if these other resources dwindled, it would then have to adapt to that, which doesn't necessarily entail losing the ability absorb the same amount of light it had previously evolved to absorb. A plant could then end up with the ability to absorb more light than it could practically photosynthesize.

Now I know your an atheist and pride yourself on being a naturally endowed/born with all the ins and outs of evolution, but before you speak do your reasearch and then forumilate a theory. It's painfully obvious your trying to bluff your way to a dismissal of everything I have said. Most of the time i let crap like that go, but for some reason today is different. I am calling all of you to task, and will hold you to the same standards you pretend to hold everything you know, and by default examine Christianity. Well today is my day to do the same. Lets see how well you fair.

It has nothing to do with atheism, nor pride. It has to do with seeing someone speak about something that betrays even the simplest understanding of its most fundamental concepts. Remember, you don't have to bluff if you are certain your opponent is full of shit.