Unanswered questions

[Drich]

As I understand it, Esq is saying that the evolution of organisms occurs as a result of numerous successive mutations. That's not at odds with what I am saying, which is that those mutations do not all have to be "positive" or beneficial and that changes that are not beneficial will not automatically lead to the extinction of a species. Or the immediate extinction, anyway.

Yes on the first count, and we've both been saying the second thing. Drich is just a little hard of understanding when it comes to things he doesn't want to be true.

Dishonest presuppositions will do that to a person.

I know and accept that not all mutations have to be positive!!! My WHOLE Arguement depends on it!!! I am saying these plants were created perfectly!!! To absorb a more energy rich light, And then had to de-evolve (mutate) to work under our yellow sun.

You people are like mindless pit bulls you see certain key words and latch on to what you think a theist position is, damn actual content or what is being communicated, and you can not let go. Because you only understand things from one angle when I oppose you. You assume i must be taking the angle that directly opposes you.

Again not the case. If plant life started out at 125% or more under a sun that produces less heat and less uv because green house gasses were much much lower than now, and the plants de-evolved to work at 100% or less of direct sun exposure, then why did they start out so effencient? that is the question being asked. As a follow up,
Why do certain plants retain this effency? And others do not? I know you want to default to the tonciles, apendixs, tail bones and little toe arguements, but may I remind you if you do then you are validating my assertion that at some point in earth's history this 125% or more greater light did indeed exist. (Or these plants did indeed originate some place where this light did exist.) fore every one of those items we no longer use did indeed have a purpose. As out environment at one point demanded it. In the same way if you default to a 'mutation' arguement you are validating that the greater/more pure light condition did indeed exist.

Do you understand yet?

If you truly do and still oppose what I have said then please start out be explaining my position as you see it and then address where it is wrong. Otherwise I am done with this arguement. Because nothing you nor anyone else has said directly addresses my points. All any of you has done is address key words and how they would be used in a typical atheist/Christian arguement. Which Does Not Apply Here!!!