Unanswered questions

[Drich]

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

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'.

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.

If you took the time to encorperate or at least figure out how my above quote supports my orginal arguement, maybe you would not have spent so much time supporting my side of the arguement.

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.

I see the hamster turning in it's wheel, but it stopped short.

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.

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.

Your asking the wrong question. You should first look at light production. the different kinds of light, the wave lengths it produces and intensity at a given wattage in a specific media. Then cross that with a given region for the anual solar out put on that same specturm of light from the artifical light source. Once you have those numbers then cross that with a hydroponic growers table for any given crops, then do the math yourself.

This is far too complex for me to try and explain to you when you do not reall care to learn any of this.

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.

preaching to the choir

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.

I'm not the one who is completely lost in this conversation