Unanswered questions

[Drich]

Where your arguements continue to fail is that there is not an enviorment on this planet nor ever has been according to 'science' that would allow for such a mutation. Name one species of anything that 'over performs' when the enviromental elements it orginally developed in doubles. Or more specifically put anything in the sun at double it current intensity and tell me what thrives.

And as I explained, evolution isn't bound by the environment, because evolution isn't a thing that can be aware of the environment. It just produces variation, nothing more. The environment factors into things in that it plays a role in whether those traits persist or not (by eliminating negatively affecting ones, not enhancing positive ones) but it plays no part in what traits develop.

Mutations can happen randomly, none of them happen in response to outside stimuli. What the sun is doing, has been doing, or will be doing, has no bearing on the plants at all.

It's not one species though so it can not be idnentified as a mutation. just about all plant life can benfit from modified artifical light exposure.

Cool, so the plants have higher tolerance to sunlight than one might think, and the trait is a common one. So what?

Not the question i ask or presented. I asked what caused them to exist IF there was not an enviorment avaiable for them to develop in.

Because things don't evolve in response to the environments that they're in, this question makes no sense. Animals in cold areas don't grow thicker fur because it's cold, they develop thicker fur over generations because the ones with thinner fur die out. It's a matter of surviveability, not location; whatever mutation or trait is causing this thing to happen isn't causing the plants to die, and that's enough for it to persist. Perhaps it carries some additional benefit- being too good at something often does- that allows it to propagate more widely, but none of this came about because of the environment.

again no. Because all of those things at one point served a purpose supposedly. They served a purpose because our enviroment demanded them for survival. Again where your arguement fails is according to the global warming fear mongers there has never been a time on this planet long enough to have plant life develop this ablity to process this extra energy.

And you're assuming that this photosynthetic overspecialization didn't serve some other purpose at some point in the past? Or doesn't serve one now? Where's your basis for saying that?

Your examples are not valid. because you can not pin point an 'orgin' for the diversity in which you speak.

Okay, fine: the origin was that in one specific generation of plant, one plat, or a population of them, had a mutation that allowed it to process more sunlight than it needed to. Because that mutation didn't outright kill the plant, or cause it to be unable to do what it needed to to survive, the plant was able to breed and create more, each carrying that same mutation, into the modern day.

Happy?

As witnessed by my last discussion about the HIV virus, and now this one, I've noticed the the word 'mutation' is used like a crutch to explain anything and everything that you can not explain. It's almost like how you people stereotype christians defaulting to "God did it." In other words you all use 'mutation' to maintain a blind faith.

Not that genetic mutations are not possible. It's just none of you have provided any evidence to support your 'mutation' fall back arguements, which makes your use of the mutation arguement a crutch to explain what your not able to explain. Without supporting evidence to back your assertions your grasping at straws. (Your rules not mine.)

Again, I do not care enough about the subject to further discuss it. I simply want to take this arguement to the point to expose your use of hypocritical faith in what you believe. All to ask, why is it not ok for Christians to show faith, but it is ok to have faith in science?

---

What version/translation of the bible do you use and why???


.

Easy to read, because it is easy to read.

NIV, because I have it in a study version

King James because it is the primary translation of the blue letter and other lexicon/concordances.

New king James because it is easier to understand at a glance.

It depends on who I am speaking with and why as to which translation I will use.

For you guys just outright, ERV.

Most Christians NKJV

If a topic goes to research the KJV or blueletter.

To explain Jewish culture or circumstances that surround a book the niv study bible. As it has commentary.