Unanswered questions

[Esquilax]

Ok my turn, I talk you listen. I am asking you to provide proof that the mutation being identified in your arguement is indeed a mutation.

And I'm telling you that every feature of a living organism is a mutation, just one in a chain of countless others stretching back to the initial abiogenetic event, whatever that was. Mutation and variation are the mechanism by which evolution- a process we can confirm to happen across all species stretching back as far as we can currently investigate- occurs. Asking me if this specific one is a mutation is like asking me if the plant involved is a plant. It's very hard to answer with specifics because the question itself is so blindingly obvious it'd be almost insulting to your intelligence to actually answer it, except that you've asked it seriously.

The reason being because both you and faith no more seem to think or rather are arguing front the position that the current plants being discussed are progressing in their evolutionary scale and have mutated into something more adaptable, some big next step.

Not at all, and again, this is where you show a misunderstanding of evolution. It's not a ladder, there's no progression, there's just change. It's not that this specific trait is some huge new thing- although I have supposed in previous posts that such a trait might be advantageous, this is true- but rather that it isn't outright harmful enough to kill the plant, and therefore there's no downward selection pressure sufficient to kill off the trait in the species.

Please, if you haven't, go and read that link that downbeatplumb posted earlier, it might clear up a few things for you.

When my arguement centers itself in the other direction. In that these 'mutations' are preexisting, and evolution of plant life is taking plants away from the ability to process higher amounts of solar energy. Any one with a reef tank who has to buy a 2x or 3x uv bulb can tell you it turbo charges algae growth. Along with reef growth. Algae being one of the oldest and forms of plant life on the planet. While recent additions like cultivated house plants are almost allergic to direct sunlight.

Sure, that's also very possible. My objections have always been to your claim that, because there's never been an environment conducive to obtaining that much solar energy, that evolution couldn't produce such a trait. Not this new thing.

I asked you to prove your mutation theory because you can't. These are not mutations. The mutations are found in the plants who can no longer be over exposed to sunlight.

What is it you think a mutation is? As I've said, any change in an organism is technically a mutation; it's just a variation from an existing gene. The overperforming photosynthetic plants were a mutation, and any that are losing that ability would be mutations too. Hell, humans have a bunch of them, generation to generation. I'm not really sure what your objection is, anymore.