Unanswered questions

[Esquilax]

The arguement is whether or not a given plant's ablity to process less sunlight than an older species is a mutation. The majority of the Mob's soap boxing on evolution believes that modern plants benfit from more uv exposure than older plants which in your minds establishes a sucession of mutation.

Of course there's a succession of mutations, because all changes and variations that occur within an organism are mutations. If life didn't mutate, we'd just be cloning ourselves.

This however is not the case. Algae is one of the oldest forms of plant life and it has one of the highest capasities for processing solar energy. which suggests that modern plant life is mutating/evolving to a less effencient form. (to adapt itself to our sun.) which again means that the algae that performs better in higher UV conditions either was designed to do so, OR this algae did not mutate/evolve here under know solar conditions.

False dichotomy, and I find it amazing that, after earlier today telling you again that evolutionary changes aren't dependent on the environment, I have to do it a second time. Are you even reading my posts? Are you reading anything that has been written in this thread?

Let me tell you again: these plants are NOT adapting themselves to ANY kind of environmental stimuli, because evolution does not, can not, and never has been proposed to, respond to environmental issues. Do you understand, now?