Unanswered questions

[Esquilax]

When you say that a given paradox in the evolutionary progress of a given plant that i point out, is an attribute to a genetic mutation,and yet you provide absolutly no proof such a mutation has been specifically identified and so labled. your appeal to genetic mutation becomes an appeal to faith.

Okay, I need you to listen to me, very carefully: evolution, the mechanism of evolution, is genetic variation and mutation. The chances of the explanation for this issue being a mutation or genetic variation, from an evolutionary perspective, is one hundred percent. There is literally no other form of evolution but variation and mutation. You're right, I don't know the specific mutation involved, but then, I don't have to: evolution is an observed fact, it happens, and therefore the mechanism by which it happens is the mechanism by which this specific trait has been inculcated.

My not being able to point to the specific mutation involved doesn't mean that a proved, demonstrated and observable accepted theory of mainstream science isn't happening. That's an argument from ignorance, and again, you're saying that accepting a proposition that is observable and consistent with reality requires proof in every specific instance of it. I'm happy saying evolution is the process behind this thing: at least that's demonstrable.

Because what is happening is that I have provided a paradox you can not solve in the theory as you understand it.

Oh right, and there's also this: the "paradox" that you're posing here isn't an issue at all, because evolution doesn't factor in the environment when producing variation. The environment dictates the frequency by which the organisms survive, but not the type and function of the initial traits and variation in the first place. Does this plant's ability to process more sunlight harm it, in a normal environment? If not, then there's no reason for it to be excluded.

This isn't like Pokemon. Your Castform might change depending on the environment, but real animals don't. Actually read my posts before you persist with this incorrect objection. Better yet, actually research what evolution is.

So rather than further discuss you dismiss to genetic mutation. This again with out documented proof such a mutation exists, your efforts can be likened to a theist who simply answers 'God works in mysterious ways.' Your default to mutation is an appeal to faith. Not faith in God but faith in science,in that such a mutation does indeed exist. Which means, your laziness to look up whether such a mutation exists or not says you either do not care about what is being discussed, we have reached your potential limit of what is being discussed, or that your indeed a man of faith.

Or rather, that your objection is nonsensical. If you'd actually provided an objection that conforms to what evolution actually is, you bet I'd go out and research this. But since your objection has absolutely no bearing on evolution, doesn't actually pose a problem for it, I don't need to answer in any detail.

You are saying that this plant poses a problem for evolution due to x. I respond that x has nothing to do with evolution, and so the mechanism by which evolution functions can explain the details of x, because it does, even if I don't have complete knowledge of it.

It's like how you can not know how a combustion engine works, yet still drive a car.

I don't like calling people stupid, so I have left two options on the table. Lazy or man of faith. I don't think your lazy. I believe you re just a shmoe who has the capacity for blind faith. And because your faith in science is good enough for you it in turn should be good enough for me.

Once again, evolution is an observed, scientific fact. It occurs, across every organism on the planet. I've seen it occur- my family breeds dogs- and I've researched it occurring in nature. It happens. So when I say that mutations and variations explain this thing, it's not faith, because mutation is what evolution is, and again, evolution is a demonstrated fact.

You can't lump me in with you god botherers, because of the two of us, only one actually has the ability to demonstrate the process behind our belief here.