(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.
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
