Unanswered questions

[Esquilax]

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.

Demonstrate this.

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.

Pretty ironic that you've said this, considering you clearly haven't been reading a single thing we've said.

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?

The answer to all of these questions is that evolution isn't selecting for positive traits so much as against negative ones; these plants started out so efficient- insofar that I'll even accept a "start" to a gradual evolutionary process- is because the initial mutation that caused their photosynthetic response had a higher band of tolerances for extremes. Certain plants retained that efficiency because it wasn't a harmful trait, nor was it enough of an energy sink to select it out of the gene pool on its own. In other plants, they lost the efficiency because one of the many random mutations that generations of organisms go through reduced this trait, again without being sufficiently harmful to produce a negative selection pressure.

Evolution can just be parallel, you know.

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.

Oh my fucking god, are you listening at all? Evolution is not beholden to the environment. Traits can evolve without being required to survive in a given environment. One can evolve to use more sunlight without that light actually existing; after all, the sun has always existed. The purpose for those photosynthetic cells is the same at 125% capacity as it is at 100% capacity; absorbing sunlight for the purposes of obtaining energy. Your objection here is nonsensical!

Do you understand yet?

Do you?

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!!!

I'm about to have a fucking aneurysm, I'm sure...